IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5564 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 26, 2011. Bud Ram. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Mohta Bright Steel(P) Ltd. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.06.2010, Annexure P1 passed by learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad vide which application filed by the petitioner for additional evidence was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad.. CR No.5564 of 2010 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a reference was sent to Labour Court-II, Faridabad under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government on the application of petitioner-workman for deciding the dispute between the parties. The reference was contested by respondent-employer by filing reply to the same. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. Case was fixed for arguments when the present application was filed by the present petitioner- workman for permission to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in order to substantiate the plea that the documents Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, which were tendered in evidence by respondent-employer, were not executed by him and however, the said request was declined by learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad vide impugned order. On 13.05.2008, learned Labour Court-II, Faridabd passed the following order:- “Documents not filed by either party. Heard. The following issues are settled down from the pleadings of the parties. 1. As per reference? OPW 2. Whether claimant himself has abandoned his job after taking an advance of Rs.2500/- as alleged? OPR 3. Relief. No other issue is pressed or claimed by the parties nor arises from the pleadings. Onus not objection to. Now, case is adjourned to 2.8.2008 for evidence of workman.” Perusal of aforementioned order shows that no documents were filed by respondent-employer at the time of framing of issues. 2 CR No.5564 of 2010 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- workman that onus of issue No.2 was on respondent-employer and that the documents were not produced by respondent-employer at the time of framing of issues and hence, petitioner-workman could not adduce evidence in affirmative in order to disapprove the said documents. It is further contended that the documents came on record for the first time in the evidence of respondent-employer, and hence, petitioner-workman should be given an opportunity to rebut the same. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-employer that plea of respondent-employer in the written statement in this regard, has not been specifically denied by petitioner- workman in the rejoinder filed by him to the written statement of respondent- employer. In view of these facts, as the documents were filed in the evidence of defendant to prove issue No.2, in the interest of justice, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-workman to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert for the purpose of comparison of his alleged signatures and handwriting on Ex.M2 and Ex.M3. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order passed by learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad is set aside. Learned Labour Court-II, Faridabad is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioner-workman to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert. Disposed of accordingly. 3 CR No.5564 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4