Bombay High Court: In the present writ petition filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) challenging the order of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) which refused its permission to lead secondary evidence, the Single Judge Bench of Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., upheld the order passed by the Tribunal, as it was passed in consonance of the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’). The Court held that the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional case for enabling it to lead secondary evidence as the reason of non-traceability of documents does not constitute a foundation to lead secondary evidence as per the provisions of Section 58 of the BSA, especially when such claim was made without any supporting affidavit.
Background
The respondent was employed at HPCL in clerical cadre and was working as Chief Administrative Assistant at its LPG. Plant. The respondent was charge-sheeted for certain charges of misconduct, so HPCL decided to conduct departmental enquiry against him. The enquiry was concluded and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Thus, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the reference was registered before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal stated the departmental inquiry against the respondent was fair but held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same were inferred to be perverse. However, the Tribunal granted an opportunity for the misconduct to be proved before it. Therefore, to prove such misconduct, HPCL filed an application before the Tribunal for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence with respect to four documents, on the ground that the documents were not available or traceable at their office. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal.
Aggrieved by the same, HPCL filed a writ petition before this Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the controversy revolved around entitlement of HPCL to lead secondary evidence with respect to the four documents mentioned in the application. The reason for permission to file secondary evidence as mentioned in the application was that the documents were not immediately available/traceable in the office of HPCL.
The Court observed that the documents in question were in the nature of leave applications submitted by an employee, statement given by a workman, letter addressed to the State Bank of India and screenshots for cash receipts, as mentioned in the application.
The Court opined that the authenticity of these documents’ could be tested only on considering the original documents bearing signatures of the persons concerned. It was pointed out by the Court, that there was no record to establish that the original was destroyed,lost or on account of reasons not arising from the default or neglect of the employer the originals cannot be produced in reasonable time.
The Court explained that Section 60(c) of the BSA, provides that secondary evidence might be given, when the original has been destroyed, lost or the party offering evidence of its contents could not, for any other reason except his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. However, the present case did not fall in any of the categories mentioned in BSA.
Further, the Court noted that only foundation led by the HPCL for leading secondary evidence was in the application, mentioning said reasons. However, the said reasons were not supported by any affidavit. Thus, the petitioners’ contention about absence of original documents only based on bare statement in an application could not be accepted.
Therefore, the Court opined that the original documents should have been in the custody of HPCL and the reason mentioned for giving secondary evidence lacked genuineness as to consider those documents the original documents were indispensable.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional case for enabling it to lead secondary evidence as the claim of non-traceability of documents did not constitute a foundation to lead secondary evidence, especially when such claim was made without any supporting affidavit for the same. It was also held that the order passed by the Tribunal was in consonance with the position of Section 58 of the BSA.
[Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Vinod, W.P. No. 2546 of 2025, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- R.B. Puranik, Senior Advocate; N.W. Almelkar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate; R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate
