Civil Revision No.2656 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2656 of 2010 Date of Decision:26.04.2010 The Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Kurukshetra .... petitioner Versus Ajmer Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagdeep Singh,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-Bank has challenged the impugned orders dated 16.12.2009 and 03.03.2010 whereby the evidence of the petitioner-management has been closed by order of the Court. It may be relevant to point out at this stage that though petitioner has also sought a direction to direct the Labour Court, Ambala to order the respondent-workman to lead his evidence in the first instance. However, in the present petition the petitioner is confining this revision petition only for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2009 and 03.03.2010, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there were sufficient reasons that the evidence of the petitioner could not be completed due to the ill-health of the representative of the management on 16.12.2009 and thus there were sufficient reasons for allowing one more Civil Revision No.2656 of 2010 2 opportunity to the petitioner-management to complete its evidence. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid sufficient reasons the Labour Court, Ambala erred at law while passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 whereby evidence was closed by order and further order dated 03.03.2010 whereby their application for recalling the aforesaid order was rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that the technicalities of the procedural law should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there were sufficient reasons for allowing the petitioner one more opportunity to complete his evidence as no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-workman as he is yet to start leading his evidence and he can very well be compensated with costs. Consequently, orders dated 16.12.2009 and 03.03.2010 are set aside. Petitioner-Management is granted one more opportunity to complete its evidence on its own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs.5000/-. It is made clear that the payment of costs shall be a pre condition for granting an opportunity to lead evidence. No further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner. Let the parties appear before the trial Court on 06.05.2010. On that day, the petitioner shall tender the costs to the respondent. On his doing so, the Labour Court shall grant an opportunity to the petitioner as aforesaid. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.04.2010 neenu