C.R. No. 2519 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2519 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.08.2010 Madan Lal .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Maruti Udyog Limited ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour court-I, Gurgaon, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence stands declined. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for being absent from duty and his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner challenged his termination, on the ground, that no fair and proper inquiry was conducted by the management. The petitioner led evidence in support of the issue, and C.R. No. 2519 of 2009 -2- **** the representative of the petitioner closed the evidence. The management did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, but placed on record the documents i.e. enquiry file to show that the proper and fair inquiry conducted. When the case was listed for arguments, the petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence to prove the following documents :- “ The Documents are 1. Reply to letter dt. 1.6.2000 sent by 18.6.2k 2-8 2. Discharge slip w/o workman in register 0-9 3. Report of w/o workman 10 4. Discharge case of w/o workman 11-12 5. Semi Ultaler report of w/o workman 13 6. Report of Radiologist 14-16 7. Medical Certificate of son of w/man 17 8. Death certificate of w/o workman 18 9. Case summery of received sum of workman 19 10. Prescription slip of son of workman 20-21 11. Discharge summary of son of workman 22 12. Salary of workman 23-49 13. Promotion letter of workman 50 14. Promotion letter dt. 6.6.90 51 15. -do- of workman dt. 29.4.94 52 16. Report 53-56 17. Application for approval of leave dt. 16.11.95 57 18. Application for dt. 21.8.95 58 19. Application for workman dt. 23.8.93 59 20. Copy of judgment and decree dt. 28.2.03 60-72” The learned Tribunal dismissed the application by recording, that the ground pleaded for leading additional evidence C.R. No. 2519 of 2009 -3- **** was not sustainable in law. This finding was recorded, as the ground taken by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was, that his representative had closed the evidence, without consulting the petitioner, and his right to contest the case stood prejudiced. The learned Tribunal held, that this could not be a ground for additional evidence. Keeping in view the fact, that strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, are not applicable to the Labour Tribunal, notice was issued to the respondent / management to show cause as to why additional evidence be not allowed. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended, that the application moved by the petitioner was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings, as the case was at arguments stage. Furthermore, the evidence, which the petitioner wants to lead by way of additional evidence, has no relevance, in deciding the issue, as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The inquiry report with complete file has already been placed on record. The petitioner can always refer to the proceedings of the enquiry to prove, as to whether enquiry is fair and proper. None of the document, which petitioner wants to produce by way of additional evidence, relates to the conduct of the inquiry. The evidence sought to be led is irrelevant to C.R. No. 2519 of 2009 -4- **** issue in question. For the reasons stated, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Labour Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. 11.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE