CR No.5268 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5268 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Balwant Kaur ...Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs.RK Thind, Advocate for the petitioner Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM NO. 21102 CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No. 5268 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure P-1) vide which request of the petitioner for a date to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent was declined and the cross- examination was declared as 'Nil'. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that counsel for the respondent has also taken 2-3 dates to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. Further contends that it was the first date for cross-examining the witnesses of respondent by counsel for the petitioner CR No.5268 of 2011 (O&M) 2 and however, counsel was busy before some other court, and he could not cross-examine the witnesses and, however, the cross-examination was declared as 'Nil'. In view of the facts mentioned above, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, who had already been examined, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to ap- pear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by CR No.5268 of 2011 (O&M) 3 which the present petition is being disposed of fully pro- tects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be de- posited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revi- sion petition revived if she feels dissatisfied with this order. 30.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) gsv Judge