C.R. No.7515 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7515 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.12.2009 Mawasi Ram .……Petitioner Versus Ansal Buildwell Ltd. ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Mawasi Ram has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 12.03.2009 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon (in short, the Labour Court). Petitioner’s evidence was closed by the Labour Court vide order dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner preferred civil revision petition No.6384 of 2008 in this Court. The same was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) thereby granting one effective opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence in the Labour Court. Order (Annexure P-5) was produced before the Labour Court on 12.01.2009 and thereupon the Labour Court adjourned the case to 12.03.2009 for evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner moved application for summoning of some witnesses on 18.02.2009, but deposited the expenses of the witnesses on 03.03.2009. On 12.03.2009, four witnesses came present. Out of them, one was C.R. No.7515 of 2009 -2- examined and another was given up as unnecessary. Remaining two witnesses did not bring the summoned record because one of them was not in custody of the summoned record and other could not bring it because record was old one. Since one effective opportunity had been granted to the petitioner in compliance with order dated 09.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court, the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 12.03.2009 closed the evidence of the petitioner by Court order. The petitioner moved application for recall of order dated 12.03.2009 and for permitting the petitioner to lead his evidence, alleging that his Authorised Representative (AR) was in custody in some criminal case and proxy Authorised Representative could not conduct the case properly. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned Order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The instant revision petition is completely frivolous and meritless. Vide order dated 09.12.2008 passed by this Court, the Labour Court was directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his entire evidence. The Labour Court in compliance with the said order gave one effective opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the Labour Court rightly closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 12.03.2009 (Annexure P- 7) and rightly dismissed the application moved for recall of that order, vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner would not gain anything by delaying the disposal of the C.R. No.7515 of 2009 -3- case. However, this contention is not sufficient to condone all lapses of the petitioner. The case before the Labour Court is already 9 years old. The petitioner can’t be given latitude to drag on the case for any number of years. Order dated 09.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court has since been complied with. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Labour Court. In addition to the aforesaid, as noticed hereinabove, the Labour Court in compliance with order dated 09.12.2008 of this Court, adjourned the case on 12.01.2009 to 12.03.2009, thereby granting two months time to the petitioner to lead his evidence. However, the petitioner deposited expenses of the witnesses just 9 days before the next date of hearing for which no explanation has come forward. Moreover, the witnesses came present and one of them was examined and another was given up as unnecessary. Remaining two witnesses did not bring the summoned record because one of them was not in custody of the summoned record and other could not bring it because record was old one. It is thus apparent that the entire fault lies on the shoulders of the petitioner himself. Another example of his conduct is that the instant revision petition has been filed five months after the passing of impugned order (Annexure P-8) dated 14.07.2009 for which also there is no explanation. I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE C.R. No.7515 of 2009 -4- 17.12.2009 A. Kaundal