C.R.No.5324 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5324 of 2009 Date of Decision : 16.09.2009 Rajender Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Administrative Officer, Municipal Council ...Respondent and Improvement Trust, Gurgaon CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 16.7.2008, whereby an application for additional evidence was dismissed. Earlier the evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 30.10.2007, when Baldev Raj, a witness summoned by the petitioner was present, but was given up being un-necessary. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner wants to linger on with the present case and, therefore, not entitled to any further opportunity. Subsequently, on the next day, the petitioner moved an application that in fact Baldev Raj was given up for the reason that he was a patient of epilepsy and cannot make statement, as he does not remember anything, the petitioner wishes to examine another witness. The said request of the petitioner has been declined vide order dated 16.7.2008. A perusal of the order of the learned Labour Court on 30.10.2007 shows that Baldev Raj was given up for the reason that he is un-necessary. Baldev Raj is an official of the Management. Once the C.R.No.5324 of 2009 2 petitioner has given a statement giving up the official of the Management, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and to summon another witness. The reasoning given by the learned Labour Court in its orders dated 30.10.2007 and 16.7.2008 cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 16.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE