* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 8864/2009 % Date of Decision: 30 July, 2009 # M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate VERSUS $ Munna Lal and Others .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) M/s. Ranbaxy Limited (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an interim order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator declining it an opportunity to cross-examine the workmen's witnesses and to lead additional evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence produced by the workmen pursuant to order dated 11.02.2008. 2. Heard. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 23 workmen working with the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute for their regularization and the said dispute raised by them was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as ID No. 130/02/2006. The issues were framed by the Court below on 21.04.2003. W.P.(C) No.8864/2009 Page 1 of 4 On behalf of the workmen, two witnesses, namely, Mr. Ved Prakash and Mr. Munna Lal were examined. Out of these two witnesses which were examined by the workmen, one of them, namely, Mr. Ved Prakash did not appear for his further cross-examination by the management and it seems that the authorized representative of the workmen closed the evidence on behalf of the workmen without getting the veracity of their witness Mr. Ved Prakash tested by the management. Thereafter, the petitioner also examined one witness and closed its evidence. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time since 25.03.2005 till the time the workmen on their application for additional evidence were permitted vide order dated 11.02.2008 to file six more documents and to lead additional evidence. Pursuant to this permission granted to the workmen vide order dated 11.02.2008, the workmen examined one more witness, namely, Mr. Girja Shankar, and he was examined on four dates, i.e., 01.04.2008, 09.05.2008, 16.05.2008 and 29.05.2008. The management thereafter moved an application before the Court below that it should be allowed to conduct the remaining cross-examination of the workmen's witness Mr. Ved Prakash and also permit it to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the workmen pursuant to order dated 11.02.2008. It is this application that has been rejected vide impugned order. 4. Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner management has argued that after the Court below had allowed the workmen to lead additional evidence, the opportunity to the management to lead evidence in rebuttal to counter the additional evidence of the workmen could not have been denied. The learned counsel has also argued that since the management was not given opportunity to conduct the remaining cross-examination of the W.P.(C) No.8864/2009 Page 2 of 4 workmen's witness, Mr. Ved Prakash, the management is also entitled to conduct the remaining cross-examination of the said witness in case the workmen seek to rely on testimony of this witness on record. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen has opposed the prayer for additional evidence/rebuttal evidence made on behalf of the management on the ground that if the said permission is granted, then it will further delay the decision of reference pending before the Court below for a long time. This, in my view, cannot be a ground to deny a fair opportunity to the management to produce its evidence to counter the evidence of the workmen as denial of the said opportunity will tantamount to denial of principles of natural justice to the management. 6. It is a matter of record that the workmen's witness Mr. Ved Prakash did not appear for his remaining cross-examination and thereby the management remained deprived of an opportunity to test the veracity of the said witness by subjecting him to cross-examination. It is not the case of the workmen that they do not want to rely upon the untested testimony of Mr. Ved Prakash. If they want to rely upon the testimony of Mr. Ved Prakash on record, then opportunity has to be given to the management to cross-examine him. 7. As far as the request of the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal to counter the additional evidence of the workmen produced by them pursuant to order dated 11.02.2008 is concerned, this request also has to be allowed because the workmen were permitted by the Court below to lead additional evidence after both the parties had closed their evidence in 2005, i.e., about three years before the workmen were permitted to lead additional evidence. 8. Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the W.P.(C) No.8864/2009 Page 3 of 4 petitioner, does not insist for further cross-examination of the second witness of the workmen, namely, of Mr. Munna Lal. Therefore, Mr. Munna Lal need not be recalled for his further cross-examination and his testimony on record shall be taken into account by the Industrial Adjudicator at the time of deciding the reference. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is hereby set aside. This writ petition is allowed to the extent that the workmen are directed to recall their witness, Mr. Ved Prakash, for the remaining cross- examination by the management on a date to be fixed by the Court below. The management is permitted to lead its evidence in rebuttal to counter the additional evidence produced by the workmen pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2008. The reference relating to regularization of the workmen is pending adjudication before the Court below for about seven years since 2002. The Tribunal is requested to expedite the disposal of the reference and make an endeavour to dispose it of within six months. The Court has been told that the case before the Court below is fixed for tomorrow, i.e., 31.07.2009. Counsel for the parties have been asked that they shall apprise the Court below about the order passed today so that necessary steps in progress of the case may be taken. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information alongwith the LCR. JULY 30, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'ma' W.P.(C) No.8864/2009 Page 4 of 4