Civil Revision No.6584 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6584 of 2007 Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Kalyan Singh .....Petitioner Versus Chief Superintendent, GLF and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The following facts are beyond the pale of controversy:- There is a controversy between the parties, for the solution of which the matter had been referred to FSL, Madhuban. The purpose was that the Hand-writing and Finger Print, Bureau would be able to compare the disputed thumb impression/signature of the workman with the disputed signature. The furnishing of an expert opinion in the context would have enabled the Labour Court to effectively dispose of the controversy. However, the FSL plea refused to accept the addressed parcel as it had not been properly addressed. The Labour Court declined to again forward the parcel to the addressee by observing that if the exercise is repeated, it would delay disposal of the relevant reference which pertained to the year 2002. It was averred by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Civil Revision No.6584 of 2007 -2- **** Hisar that the Court being “expert of all experts, there is no necessity of sending the thumb impression again and again.” I have heard learned counsel Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents and have carefully perused the record. The entire approach of the learned Labour Court is inappropriate. Once an order had been passed to refer the matter to the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to review/recall its own order. It would be particularly so when it appears that obtaining of an expert opinion would facilitate the factual adjudication of the controversy . In the light of fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed. Learned Presiding Officer, Hisar, shall forward the paper again to the FSL, Madhuban and, on receipt of report therefrom, shall proceed further in accordance with law. January 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE