High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

D. N. Saini vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
D. N. Saini vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                 Civil Writ Petition No.18679 of 2009
                                 Date of decision:07.12.2009

D. N. Saini                                                    ....Petitioner


                                 versus


Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I, Gurgaon and
another
                                                               ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
                                 ----

Present:      Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                                 ----

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment ?
2.     To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
                                 ----

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of a request sought

by the petitioner for letting him further evidence. The justification for

the petitioner was that on the date when the case was posted for giving

evidence, the counsel was engaged in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

yet another case and, therefore, he was not able to attend the Court. The

Labour Court found that the petitioner’s side had been closed as early as

on 13.12.2007 and he had availed to himself several opportunities to let

in evidence, but he has not completed his side. The Labour Court,

therefore, rejected his plea.

Civil Writ Petition No.18679 of 2009 -2-

2. Counsel for the petitioner requests for one more opportunity

for concluding his evidence. The claim relates to an adjudication of an

industrial dispute sought at the instance of the workman and interest of

justice requires that the workman is granted full opportunity. Although

no patent error is found in the order of the Labour Court, I still think that

the workman would be grated an opportunity as a measure of grace. At

the hearing before the Labour Court, the petitioner shall produce a copy

of the order and he shall be permitted an opportunity to produce his

evidence. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is entitled

to such liberty as aforesaid.

3. Having regard to the fact that the case has been referred for

adjudication in 2001, I do not want the pendency of the writ petition to

cause further delay and therefore, I hasten to pass directions even at the

stage of admission, waiving notice to the respondent.

4. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
07.12.2009
sanjeev