S.45 Indian Evidence Act | “Expert Opinion is Essential for Fair Adjudication”: Rajasthan HC Directs Tribunal to Reassess Termination Dispute Over Alleged Forged Signatures
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Rajsthan High Court Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has set aside the award dated 31.12.2001 issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed a petition challenging the termination of services of a workman, citing insufficient evidence to prove continuous service of over 240 days in the preceding year. The High Court noted a "serious and disputed fact" concerning allegations that the petitioner was made to work under multiple aliases and directed the Tribunal to obtain expert handwriting opinion before proceeding further.
Justice Dhand issued a directive that the Tribunal must procure a handwriting expert’s opinion regarding the disputed signatures on payment vouchers and conclude the case within one year. The Court also recorded that “an opinion of the handwriting expert is required in the instant matter to verify the fact that whether the petitioner or the respondent is telling correct facts.” The petitioner was represented by Mr. Prem Krishna Sharma, and the respondents by Dr. Saugath Roy.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned award of the Tribunal rejecting his claim against his termination order dated 13.08.1999. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager by the respondent organization on 10.05.1993 and claims to have worked continuously until 12.08.1999. According to the petitioner, on 13.08.1999, he was orally informed that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation, allegedly violating Sections 25-D, 25-F, and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the respondent engaged in a practice of taking the petitioner’s services under various names to avoid granting him regular employment benefits. Specifically, it was submitted that the petitioner’s signatures were obtained on payment vouchers under different names, including Jagga Kumar Nirman, Jankilal, Jaswant Singh, Jankiram, Bhanwarlal, Gopal Singh, Dan Singh, Ramchandra, Shyamlal, Arvind, Surendra, Nandram, Madho Singh, Jasod Singh, Chouthmal, Jagat Singh, Hira Prasad Naval Kishore, and Jamna Prasad.
The petitioner had requested the Tribunal to analyze and compare his signatures and handwriting against the signatures on the disputed payment vouchers, either by involving an expert or through Tribunal’s own assessment. However, this request was not entertained by the Tribunal, which proceeded to reject the petitioner’s claim on the basis that the petitioner had failed to prove continuous employment of 240 days within the year preceding the alleged termination.
The respondent’s counsel opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner’s claims were baseless and that the respondent organization, being a government entity, would not resort to such practices. The counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected.
The High Court, after considering the submissions, examined the statutory provisions and the facts presented by both parties, particularly focusing on the application of Sections 25-D, 25-F, and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which outline conditions relating to retrenchment and termination of services.
The Court recorded that “a serious and disputed fact has been brought into the notice of this Court that the work and services of the petitioner have been taken by respondents under different names and while making payment of wages, his signatures were taken under different names.” The Court noted that such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and should instead be determined by the Tribunal after recording evidence from both parties.
The Court referred to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits Courts to call expert evidence in matters relating to handwriting and signature identification. It was observed that while Courts have discretion under Sections 45 and 73 of the Act to either seek expert opinions or conduct their own comparison, caution is advised. The Court stated, “relying on the Court’s own comparison of signatures is not sufficient and the expert opinion is essential for fair adjudication of the matter.”
Justice Dhand cited multiple precedents, including State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram, Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, to reinforce the position that Courts should generally defer to expert opinion in handwriting disputes unless there is absolute clarity from visual comparison.
In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram, the Supreme Court observed, “Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing... the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting solely on comparison made by himself.”
Similarly, in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, the Court recorded, “as a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature.”
Further, in Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, the Apex Court cautioned against casual comparison, noting, “comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert has always been considered to be hazardous and risky.”
Lastly, in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it.”
The High Court, applying these principles, concluded that the Tribunal should have first obtained expert opinion before deciding the matter. It observed, “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 a slightest doubt exists, the Court shall send the admitted and disputed signatures getting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872.”
The High Court quashed the impugned award dated 31.12.2001 and directed that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Court 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.”
The parties have been directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.04.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prem Krishna Sharma
For Respondent(s): Dr. Saugath Roy
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Nirvan v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4969/2002.
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
