Civil Revision No.2458 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2458 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.2.2009 Madan Mohan ...Petitioner Versus M/s Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondent No.1, S.D.ANAND, J. The facts, as apparent from the record and conceded before this Court even otherwise, are as under:- The petitioner-workman initially closed his evidence. The management also closed its evidence. Thereafter, the management filed an application for additional evidence which was allowed on 14.12.2001 and that additional evidence was closed on 31.3.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner-workman applied for summoning of a witness. That request of his was declined by the Tribunal. In revision petition filed by the petitioner, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajive Bhalla, J.) disposed of the revision petition on 29.1.2008 “with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for additional evidence. In case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.” It was thereafter that the petitioner-workman filed a petition for additional evidence which, too, was declined by the Presiding Officer, Civil Revision No.2458 of 2008 -2- **** Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide impugned order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-3). Both the parties concluded their evidence of affirmative and rebuttal character in this reference pertaining to the year 1996 long ago. The management closed their evidence on 31.3.2006. Even thereafter, the reference remained pending for the rebuttal evidence of the workman. As the petitioner-workman failed to summon any evidence, his (rebuttal) evidence came to be closed. It was thereafter only that he filed a plea for additional evidence. By the very nature of things, a case cannot be continue till infinity. The petitioner having availed of plenty of opportunity to adduce whatever evidence he wanted to, cannot be heard to argue in favour of the grant of the plea for a further adjournment to be able to adduce additional evidence. Dismissed. February 16, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge