Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 Date of Decision:30.08.2011 Sarwan Kumar Pathak ......Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is that, the services of Sarwan Kumar Pathak-petitioner-workman, were stated to have been illegally terminated by the Management of respondent No.2-M/s Bhiwani Textile Mills Limited(for short “the Management”). In view of the industrial dispute, the appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court by way of order dated 11.10.2005. 2. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues, by means of order dated 06.10.2006 and thereafter, the case was slated for evidence of the workman:- “1. As per terms of reference?OPA 2. Whether the departmental enquiry was illegal and unfair, as alleged?OPA 3. If issue No.2 is proved in favour of the workman, whether the workman is guilty of the charges leveled against him? 4. Relief.” 3. The petitioner-workman availed numerous opportunities, own responsibility, including the last opportunity, vide order dated 09.05.2008, but he Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 2 failed to conclude his evidence. Ultimately, the Labour Court closed his evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.05.2008(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “Today, the case is fixed for evidence of the workman. No evidence on behalf of the workman is present even the workman himself has not come present in the court to make statement despite last opportunity provided to him vide order dated 09.05.2008. Several opportunities have already been granted to the workman to conclude his evidence. He was also burdened with Rs.100/- as cost vide order dated 04.08.2008. Therefore, keeping in view the opportunities already availed by the workman for concluding his evidence, his evidence is ordered to be closed. However, previous cost of Rs.200/- has been paid and accepted.” 4. Instead of challenging the order(Annexure P-3), the petitioner- workman moved an application(Annexure P-4) on 18.07.2008 for modification/recalling of the orders. 5. The Management refuted the prayer of the workman, filed the reply (Annexure P-5) and prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court dismissed the application (Annexure P-4) of the workman, through the medium of impugned order dated 10.06.2011(Annexure P-6). 7. Aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-3 and P-6) of the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- Management, in order to save it from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the case, particularly when it can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 3 matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 10. As is clear that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Labour Court, to close the evidence of the workman was that, many opportunities have already been granted to him to conclude the evidence, but he failed to do so. 11. Ex facie, it may be true that, the petitioner-workman was negligent in this regard, but to me, taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the Labour Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner-workman to conclude his evidence, subject to the costs, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. If the opportunity to conclude the evidence is not granted to the petitioner-workman, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-Management, particularly when, it can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant context. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The Labour Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-workman, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-workman to the respondent-Management. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Labour Court forthwith, for strict compliance. August 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 4 C.M.No.18335-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.4628 of 2011 Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE