Bombay High Court
P. A. INAMDARversusTASNEEM SAYYED NIYAMATULLA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A party cannot call its adversary as its own witness in an unfair labour practice proceeding; the Labour Court’s order allowing such summons was erroneous and is set aside.
Summary
Petitioner P. A. Inamdar filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order that rejected his revision of a Labour Court order which had allowed the respondent, Tasneem Sayyed Niyamatulla, to summon him as a witness for cross‑examination in an unfair labour practice complaint. The respondent sought the summons to ascertain the petitioner’s "actual condition" and had previously withdrawn the request before re‑filing it. The High Court examined whether a party in an unfair labour practice proceeding can call the opposite party as its own witness merely to determine his condition and held that such a summons is impermissible. Relying on precedents that a party cannot be compelled to testify as a witness against its own interest, the Court found the Labour Court’s order erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Court order of 3 June 2025, the Industrial Court’s confirmation of that order, and the subsequent bailable warrant dated 8 August 2025, allowing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a party in an unfair labour practice complaint may summon the opposite party as a witness for the purpose of ascertaining his condition.
- Whether the Labour Court erred in permitting the issuance of a witness summons against the petitioner.
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's revision application.
- Whether the earlier withdrawal of the summons request defeats the existence of the later order.
Subjects
- unfair labour practice
- witness summons
- cross‑examination
- employer‑employee relationship
- industrial court
- revision petition
- habeas corpus
- legal access
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37258
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2026
P. A. Inamdar ...Petitioner
V/s.
Tasneem Sayyed Niyamatulla ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, Ms.
Shubhra Swami, Mr. Swapnil Shanbhag, Ms. Shweta More, Mr. Sanket
Tare i/b Mr. S. S. Bedekar for Petitioner.
Ms. Tasneem Sayyed Niyamatulla Respondent-in-person.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 5
August 2026 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Pune
(Industrial Court) rejecting Revision (ULP) No. 82 of 2025 filed by the
Petitioner challenging the order dated 3 June 2025 passed by the Labour
Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 87 of 2020. By order dated 3 June 2025, the
Labour Court had allowed the Application preferred by the Respondent
seeking issuance of summons to the Petitioner for conduct of his cross-
examination.
Page No.1 of 6
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
2) I have heard Mr. Kadam, the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner. Ms. Niyamatulla, the Respondent has appeared in person.
3) Respondent claims to be the employee of the Petitioner and
has accordingly filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before Labour
Court, Pune seeking following reliefs:-
तरी नम्र विनंती की,
१) सदरील राहत्या रूम मधून अर्जदार यांना काढू नये असे आदेश जाबदेणार यांना
देण्यात यावे.
२) अर्जदार यांना परत कामावर घेण्याचे आदेश करण्यात यावे.
३) सदरील केसचा निकाला पर्यंत अर्जदार यांचा कामाचा पगार देण्याचे आदेश जाबदेणार
यांना करण्यात यावेत.
४) अर्जदार यांचा Interim Relief चा अर्ज मंजुर करण्यात यावा.
५) अर्जदार यांना झालेला शारीरिक, आर्थिक व मानसिक त्रासाबद्दल नुकसान भरपाई
देण्यात यावी.
६) दिनांक २७ अगस्त २०२० या रोजी सुरक्षा रक्षक यांनी दिलेला खोटा बडतर्फी चा
आदेश रद्द करण्यात यावा.
७) इतर योग्य ते न्यायचे हुकुम व्हावेत.
4) In the complaint, the Petitioner raised objection about
absence of employer-employee relationship.
5) It appears that the Respondent filed an Application on 2
May 2025 for issuing witness summons to the Petitioner for conduct of
his cross-examination, which was allowed by the Labour Court vide order
dated 2 May 2025. However, immediately on 22 May 2025, the
Respondent withdrew her request for calling the Petitioner for cross-
examination and prayed before the Labour Court that the Petitioner be
Page No.2 of 6
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
dropped as a witness. However, on 3 June 2025, Respondent changed her
mind and once again filed application for issuance of summons to the
Petitioner for his cross-examination. The application is granted by the
Labour Court by order dated 3 June 2025, which became the subject
matter of the challenge in Revision (ULP) No. 82 of 2025 before the
Industrial Court. The order of the Labour court has been confirmed by
the Industrial Court. It appears that in pursuance of order dated 3 June
2025, the Labour Court passed further order dated 8 August 2025 issued
bailable warrant against the petitioner.
6) Perusal of the averments in the Application dated 3 June
2025 would indicate that one of the reasons why the Respondent wants
presence of the Petitioner before the Labour Court is for the purpose of
ascertaining his ‘actual condition’. This is clear from the averments in
paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the Application, which reads thus:-
3. That the applicant has since made sincere efforts to ascertain
the actual condition of the opponent Dr. P. A. Inamdar, who is
approximately 80 years old, a renowned educationist, public figure,
chairman of the Muslim Co-operative Bank, and a respected leader in
the community.
4. That the last summons issued by this Hon'ble Court was not
received by Dr. Inamdar personally, and it is believed that this by due
to the intentional obstruction and Isolation enforced by his family,
thereby depriving him of legal access and justice.
5. That all channels of communication to Dr. Inamdar have been
closed and the applicant's attempts to speak or meet with him have
been repeatedly blocked by his family members, confirming a pattern
of concealment and control over his actions.
7) It appears that the Respondent filed Criminal Writ Petition
No. 6355 of 2025 for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to secure
Page No.3 of 6
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
production of Petitioner claiming to be the second wife of the Petitioner.
That Petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 13
March 2026, recording a finding that Petitioner was not in illegal
detention.
8) Thus, after filing of Application dated 3 June 2025 and after
passing of order thereon on 3 June 2025, the condition of the Petitioner
has already been ascertained by Division Bench of this Court while
disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2025 on 13 March 2026.
Even otherwise, it is highly debatable as to whether in a complaint of
unfair labour practice, Respondent/Complainant can summon the
Petitioner/Opponent just for the purpose of ascertaining his ‘actual
condition’.
9) It is also a matter of fact that the Petitioner has not stepped
into the witness box for leading evidence. Therefore, his adversary
cannot insist that he must come in the witness box for the purpose of
cross-examination. The law in this regard is well settled in several
judgments which have been surveyed by this Court in Digambar Through
L.Rs. Smt. Mangalabai and Ors. V/s Dattatray and Ors. 1 in which it is held
in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:
11. Coming to the legal aspects, as has been referred to by the learned Single
Judge in the case of Suresh Sahebrao Tawale (supra) since long the Privy
Council as well as several High Courts have depreciated the practice of
calling the adversary as its own witness. In the case of Ramdas Dhondibhu
Pokharkar (supra) the Bank had filed the suit and the defendant had sought a
witness summons to one of its employees to identify a signature on the
document. The witness himself was not a party to the suit nor was he having
any authority to represent the bank. By referring to such peculiar state of
affairs, in the case of Ramdas Dhondibhu Pokharkar (supra) the decision in
1 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3238
Page No.4 of 6
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
the case of Pirgonda Hongonda (supra) was distinguished. In the case of
Ravalnath Builders (supra) though the decision in the case of Pirgonda
Hongonda (supra) was cited, it has not been distinguished and the decision
was rendered merely relying upon the decision in the case of Ramdas
Dhondibhu Pokharkar (supra) which itself is distinguishable on facts.
12. Considering all the aforementioned set of facts and law, one cannot but
follow the decision in the case of Pirgonda Hongonda (supra) which
concludes that a party is not entitled to call its adversary as its own witness.
If that be so, I do not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the
petitioners' application by taking such a view.
10) It appears that the Industrial Court has appreciated the
above position and observed that ordinarily Petitioner cannot be
summoned for cross-examination. However, merely because Petitioner
did not object to the earlier order dated 2 May 2025, the Industrial Court
has refused to set aside the order dated 3 June 2025. The Industrial Court
however did not appreciate the position that shortly after passing of
order dated 2 May 2025, Respondent herself withdrew her request for
summoning Petitioner as witness for cross-examination on 22 May 2025.
Therefore, before the order dated 2 May 2025 could be challenged, the
same lost its existence on 22 May 2025.
11) Considering the above position, in my view, the Industrial
Court has erred in rejecting the Revision Application preferred by the
Petitioner. The Labour Court has erroneously allowed Application dated
3 June 2025 filed by the Respondent inter alia for the purpose of
ascertaining the condition of the Petitioner. Even otherwise, in view of
the law settled by this Court in Digambar V/s Dattatray (supra), the
Respondent is not entitled to call her adversary as her own witness.
12) Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 5 August 2026
passed in Revision (ULP) No. 82 of 2025 as well as order passed by the
Page No.5 of 6
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 26-WP-11677-2026.docx
Labour Court on 3 June 2025 are set aside. Consequently, order dated 8
August 2025 on Application at Exh-U39 is also set aside.
13) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.6 of 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 10/09/2026 10:27:25
Checking your session…