C.R. No. 8206 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8206 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.1.2011 The Superintending Engineer PUDA & others ......Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana & another .......Respondents ******* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Respondent No.2-Iqbal Singh raised an industrial dispute qua his illegal termination and the same was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana. After the filing of the written statement by the petitioners, issues were framed by the Tribunal on 22.3.2006 and the case was then adjourned from time to time for evidence of the workman-respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 closed his evidence on 8.4.2008 and thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for evidence of the petitioners- Management. Vide impugned order dated 20.7.2010, evidence of the petitioners-Management was closed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners-Management. C.R. No. 8206 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sub Divisional Officer Kuldeep Singh, who was pursuing the case had unfortunately died on 7.4.2010. Responsibility to pursue the case was given to the present Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.7.2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that a last opportunity was afforded to the petitioners-Management for leading evidence subject to payment of ` 1,000/- as costs. However, neither costs were paid on 20.7.2010 nor any evidence was led by the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was left with no other alternative but to close the evidence of the petitioners-Management by order. Although, the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was pursuing the case had died, but the petitioners-Management were duly represented by their law officer and thus were bound to know about the imposition of costs vide order dated 9.3.2010. Since the petitioners had failed to deposit the costs, as imposed by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.3.2010, the evidence of the petitioners has been rightly closed by the Tribunal. No interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 18, 2011 Anand