( 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 2026:BHC-AUG:37626 ( 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 : O R D E R 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