Court Should Seek Expert Opinion U/S.45 Of Evidence When Admitted & Disputed Signatures Have To Be Compared; Same Can Be Refused Only When No Doubt Exists: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court was considering a writ petition where a challenge had been made by the petitioner to the impugned award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur by which the claim of the petitioner-workman against his termination order had been rejected.

Referring to various pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “...the Court shall normally seek expert opinion when it is posed with a situation where it has to compare admitted and disputed signatures. The Court can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness of the signatures, after comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. In cases where even slightest doubt exists, the Court shall send the admitted and disputed signatures getting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872.”

Advocate Prem Krishna Sharma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Dr. Saugath Roy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as presented by the Petitioner was that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the office of the respondent and he worked there continuously till August 12, 1999, but on the next day, he was orally denied to work on the said post. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that before orally terminating his services, the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 25-D, 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947 were not followed.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that it was the petitioner's case before the Tribunal that his services were taken by the respondents under different names and different signatures were taken from him on the payment vouchers. The petitioner had also urged the Tribunal to verify this factual aspect of the matter, after getting the opinion of an expert or making a comparison of the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner by the Tribunal.

It was further noticed that both the prayers made by the petitioner, were not looked into and the impugned award had been passed by the Tribunal holding that the petitioner had failed to establish on the record that he worked with the respondent organization continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding year.

A disputed fact had been brought into the notice of this Court that the work and services of the petitioner had been taken by respondents under different names. On this aspect, the Bench said, “This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction, contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same can be adjudicated by the Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both sides, in this regard.”

It further asserted, "The Court under Section 73 of the Act, 1872 can itself compare the signatures or handwriting. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that Court cannot act as an expert in all the cases. Unless it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are different, the Court should normally call for an opinion from the expert.”

“While adjudicating the matters involving disputed handwriting and signatures, the Courts can consider expert opinions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act of 1872’) but these opinions are not conclusive and should be evaluated alongside other evidence”, it added. The Bench explained that Section 45 provides that the Court can call for evidence of expert to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. “It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case”, the Bench observed.

Considering the fact that an opinion of the handwriting expert was required to verify the fact that whether the petitioner or the respondent was telling correct facts, the Bench quashed the impugned award and ordered, “The matter is remitted to the Tribunal with direction to get opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner on the payment vouchers of wages and after getting opinion of the expert, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide and adjudicate the matter on the merits, on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties, before the Tribunal.”

Cause Title: Jitendra Kumar Nirvan v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court & Ors. (Neutral Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4969/2002)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Prem Krishna Sharma

Respondent: Advocate Dr. Saugath Roy

Click here to read/download Order