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 2026:BHC-AS:37258 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 र्जाबदेणार यांना देण्यात याे. २) अर्जदार यांना परत कामार घेण्याचे आदेश करण्यात याे. ३) सदरील के सचा विनकाला पय'त अर्जदार यांचा कामाचा पगार देण्याचे आदेश र्जाबदेणार यांना करण्यात याेत. ४) अर्जदार यांचा Interim Relief चा अर्ज मंर्जुर करण्यात याा. ५) अर्जदार यांना झालेला शारीरिरक, आर्थि/क मानसिसक त्रासाबद्दल नुकसान भरपाई देण्यात याी. ६) विदनांक २७ अगस्त २०२० या रोर्जी सुरक्षा रक्षक यांनी विदलेला खोटा बडतर्फी? चा आदेश रद्द करण्यात याा. ७) इतर योग्य ते न्यायचे हुकु म व्हाेत. 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.] Page No. 6 of 6 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 10:27:25