GORAKH NARAYAN KHANDAREversusKINETIC ENGINEERING LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR

2026:BHC-AUG:37626



                                                  (1)                      906 WP 5768 OF 2024


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               906 WRIT PETITION NO. 5768 OF 2024

                                    GORAKH NARAYAN KHANDARE
                                                 VERSUS
               KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING
                                                DIRECTOR
                                                    ...
           Mr. A. A. Joshi h/f. Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioner
                                                   …

                                             CORAM       : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATE        : 19.08.2026

           PER COURT :-

           .            Upon hearing the petitioner, this Court issued notice to the

           respondent which is an automobile company. The record depicts that the

           notice issued by this Court is served on the respondent – company. Yet, no one

           has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called

           out. Considering the very short question involved in the writ petition, I deem

           it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition on its merits.


           2.           It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was serving with the

           company. On account of some alleged misconduct, the petitioner was

           subjected to a show-cause notice and was also put under suspension during

           the period from 26.06.2017 to 17.12.2018. The issue before this Court is only

           in respect of the claim for subsistence allowance by the petitioner for the
                                     (2)                       906 WP 5768 OF 2024


aforesaid period. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section

33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking directions to the respondent–

company to release the subsistence allowance amounting to Rs.3,75,000/-.

The respondent – company appeared in the matter, filed its written statement,

issues were framed, and the petitioner tendered his affidavit in examination

during the trial. The respondent – company cross-examined the petitioner. An

application Exhibit-U-27 was preferred by the petitioner requesting permission

to undergo re-examination taking recourse to Section 138 of the Indian

Evidence Act.


3.          The petitioner’s contention is that in fact the petitioner was

referred to a letter dated 22.11.2017. However, the letter which was

confronted to the petitioner was dated 23.11.2017 which in fact contained the

petitioner’s transfer order. The petitioner’s contention is that he was under a

bona fide impression that the query was with regard to the letter dated

22.11.2017. Hence, under a bona fide impression, the petitioner offered a

positive answer to the question. When the petitioner went through the court

proceedings and the text of the evidence, he realised that due to confusion

relating to the dates mentioned in the evidence and the documents that were

actually confronted to him, he had given a wrong answer. Therefore, to clarify

the things, the petitioner filed the said application. The respondent – company
                                       (3)                        906 WP 5768 OF 2024


opposed the application and submitted that neither it was a case under

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act nor was the application filed with bona

fide intention by the petitioner.


4.           After hearing the parties, learned Judge of the Labour Court,

Ahmednagar passed impugned order on 24.11.2023 thereby rejecting

petitioner’s application. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.


5.           Mr. A. A. Joshi learned Advocate h/f. Mr. S. V. Natu, learned

Advocate for the petitioner submits that the application was indeed a bona

fide one. He submits that there was no reason for the petitioner to delay his

own dispute application. It is his submission that in fact a question was asked

about one letter while the petitioner was confronted with another letter. He

submits that for this extremely short reason, the petitioner has filed the

application. He would submit that such a situation is covered by Section 138

of the Indian Evidence Act, and to arrive at a correct conclusion, it would be

just and proper if the Trial Court allows the petitioner’s application.


6.           As observed above, there is no one to oppose the petition. I have

gone through the papers placed along with the pleadings in the writ petition.

The learned Judge of the Labour Court observed that the petitioner does not

qualify for the requirements of Section 138 and the application seems to be an
                                        (4)                        906 WP 5768 OF 2024


afterthought application. It is also observed that the petitioner could not

demonstrate as to what prejudice would be caused due to the answer given in

the cross-examination observing that passing any favourable order on the

application would delay the proceedings. Thus, the application came to be

rejected by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar.


7.           Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus :


      “The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of the
      matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is,
      by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the
      adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.”


8.           The facts placed before me show that the petitioner’s contention

is that he wants to bring on record an explanation of the matter referred to in

his cross-examination. To that extent and considering the reasons mentioned

by the petitioner i.e. the question being asked with regard to one letter and

the petitioner being confronted with another letter, I find that the petitioner

deserves one opportunity to undergo re-examination taking recourse to

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. Obviously, the proceedings are at the

behest of the petitioner himself and he would be the sufferer of the delay, if

any. The petitioner is ready to suffer such delay. That apart, it is also clear that

the other side has right to cross-examine the petitioner, once the re-
                                       (5)                        906 WP 5768 OF 2024


examination is conducted and if the other side deems it necessary to cross-

examine the petitioner. I find that, in the interest of justice, the petition needs

to be allowed.


9.           Hence I pass following order :


                                     ORDER

      I.     Writ Petition stands allowed.

      II.    The order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned
      Member,     Labour    Court,   Ahmednagar      below   application
      Exhibit-U-27 is quashed and set aside.

      III.   The application Exhibit-U-27 stands allowed in its terms.

      IV.    Writ Petition stands disposed of.




                                                    [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW