C.R.No.822 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.822 of 2009. Decided on August 25, 2009. Raj Kumar Baudh .. Petitioner VERSUS M/s Sansar Braktrols Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.A.K.Tyagi, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 22.01.2009, by virtue of which, the petitioner-workman has been denied an opportunity to summon Sanjeev Kumar and Monika Kumar stated to be Managing Director of the Employer Company M/s Sansar Braktrols Private Limited. When asked about the purpose of summoning the Managing Directors as witnesses, counsel for the petitioner submitted that documents EX.PW4/B to EX.PW4/E, are dated 24,08.1998, 20.09.1999, 24.08.1998 and 05.08.1998, respectively, and that the petitioner wants to prove the said documents that he was working for the Company during the disputed period. . . . 1 C.R.No.822 of 2009 I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour court, has declined permission to the petitioner to summon the witnesses Sanjeev Kumar and Monika Kumar, inter alia, on the ground that the documents which are sought to be proved stand already exhibited by workman witness Ajay Katyal. As the documents stand already exhibited, there is no need for summoning more more witnesses. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the said witnesses being Managing Directors are required to admit or deny their signatures on the documents which are already exhibited but I do not find an force in the same as the documents stand already exhibited. It will be open to the petitioner to derive the benefit at the time of final adjudication of the matter to substantiate his plea taken in his claim before the Labour Court. The reference pertains to year 2000. No useful purpose will be served by summoning the Managing Directors as witnesses of the workman. Even otherwise, if such practice is permitted that would tantamount to compelling the respondent-employer to appear as a witness against themselves. In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 25, 2009. rka . . . 2 C.R.No.822 of 2009 . . . 3