CR No. 5186 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 5186 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2009
Satnam Singh ....Petitioner
Vs.
Presiding Officer & Anr. .....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Vinod K.Sharma,J.
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh vide which
the application moved by the petitioner to lead additional evidence stands
dismissed.
The petitioner sought reference against termination of his
services which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for adjudication. Pleaded case
of the petitioner was that his name was changed as Satwinder Singh in place
of Satnam Singh while showing him on the roll in the month of February,
2001. He wanted to summon the Hand Writing Expert to verify handwriting
CR No. 5186 of 2009 2
on Ex.MW 1. He further sought to summon JE, Sub Division Water Supply
No.9, Sector-19, Chandigarh along with original muster roll from 1.2.2001
to 29.2.2001 and to know about the whereabouts of alleged Satwinder
Singh and Sukhwinder Singh.
The application was contested on the plea that workman was
well aware on 19.12.2002 about Sukhwinder Singh who worked in
February, 2001. It was so mentioned in his replication. The evidence of the
petitioner was recorded after summoning the official witnesses on
12.3.2003, 20.5.2003, 8.9.2003 and 30.8.2005. Issue of Satwinder Singh
and Sukhwinder Singh was raised in the evidence led by the petitioner.
Learned Labour Court, therefore, found that the plea that his
name was changed by the Management from Satnam Singh to Sukhwinder
Singh and that his signatures were in his own hand-writing were well
within his knowledge. The learned Tribunal, therefore, found that the
evidence sought to be led by way of additional evidence was not such
which was not within his knowledge at the time of leading evidence,
therefore, the application could not be allowed, when the case was fixed for
arguments.
Mr. Rajesh Punj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contends that the petitioner was represented by a representative
who was not aware of technicalities of law and that the evidence was
necessary for the court to adjudicate the claim of the respective parties,
therefore, the impugned order deserved to be set aside.
On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner from the very
CR No. 5186 of 2009 3
beginning was that the name of the petitioner was changed, he even led
evidence in this regard. Evidence sought to be produced by way of
additional evidence cannot be said to be one which was not within his
knowledge. Even though the court has an inherent power to allow
additional evidence, still the additional evidence cannot be allowed merely
on asking, especially with regard to the fact which is only in dispute and
the parties led evidence in respect thereof. The witnesses of the respondent
have also been cross-examined by the petitioner on this point.
No merit.
Dismissed.
10.09.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge