સાક્ષીની ઉલટ તપાસ દરમ્યાન રેકર્ડ ઉપર રહેલા ઝેરોક્ષ કોપી વાળા ડોક્યુમેન્ટ બતાવી શકાય છે. તેમજ તે ડોક્યુમેન્ટ ઉપર પ્રશ્નો પણ પૂછી શકાય છે. પરંતુ તે ડોક્યુમેન્ટો પુરાવામાં સ્વીકાર્ય થયાનું માની શકાય નહિ. (પારા ૪ )

રીલેટેડ પેરેગ્રાફ :

Present writ petition is filed to challenge the said order. Admittedly the document in question was already produced on record. Mere production of document does not mean, admission of the document in evidence. In order to admit the document in evidence, the document must be proved as per the provisions of Evidence Act or it must be admitted by the other side in evidence. Therefore, mere production of the document will not make the admission of the document in evidence. Similarly, merely proving the signature on the document will not also amount to proving of the whole of the document. It will be open for the Court to put a query to the respondent at the time when the respondent wants to refer to the said document and to show the same to the witness as regards the whereabouts of the original document as well as how the document came in possession of the respondent. It is settled law that in order to admit a document which is in the nature of secondary evidence, the party producing the said document must make out a case for admission of the secondary evidence. In order to admit a document in evidence, it is also necessary for the Court to consider the question as to whether the document is coming from proper custody or not. Therefore, at this stage merely showing of the said document during cross examination of a witness for the present petitioner could not be said to be improper or illegal. The revisional Court was quite justified in permitting the respondent to show that document during cross examination. Merely showing of the document during cross examination would not amount to admission of the document in evidence. If the document is shown to the witness and if the witness admits the signature thereon, it would be open for the petitioner to raise an objection at that time before the Court, that the document in question being a copy, the petitioner is objecting for exhibiting of the said document and the objection raised by the petitioner should be considered and decided by the Labour Court at the time of final hearing. In the circumstances I hold that it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the revisional Court by exercising discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. The costs awarded at the time of admission of the petition are already withdrawn by the respondent and therefore, no separate order is passed regarding withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court. Rule discharged. No order as to costs of this petition. (para 4).