C.W.P.No.15094 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.15094 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 06.03.2009 Suresh ....Petitioner(s) vs. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman solely on the ground that he has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim nor he himself has stepped into the witness box nor has corroborated the facts of his demand notice. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had, as a matter of fact, moved an application dated 21.4.2006 (Annexure P-7) before the Labour Court praying therein that the Department-respondent herein be directed to produce the complete relevant enquiry record of Suresh Kumar- employee, reliance whereof was made by the Management for justifying the order of termination of the workman. The said application was allowed and C.W.P.No.15094 of 2008 -2- a direction was issued to the respondent to produce the relevant records as called for. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the various zimni orders as Annexure P-5 to the writ petition and referring to them, he has submitted that after the framing of the issues, the case has been fixed for production of the records by the Management on various occasions i.e. on 18.8.2006, 20.10.2006, 15.12.2006, 30.3.2007, 13.7.2007 and 4.1.2008. On 13.7.2007, the Management failed to produce the records which were called for on an application moved by the workman to adduce evidence. The matter ultimately came up for hearing on 4.1.2008 when the evidence of the the workman was closed by order, stating therein that various opportunities have already been availed by the workman and even last opportunity was provided to him on 13.7.2007 but still he has not produced any evidence. It is apparent from order dated 4.1.2008 that on that date also, the Management had failed to produce the records. He, on the basis of these zimni orders, contends that the Labour Court instead of drawing an adverse inference against the Management, had proceeded to close the evidence of the workman when the workman had taken all care and caution for proving his case against the Management. He, therefore, contends that the order passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside as the workman ought to have been given one more opportunity to produce his own evidence so that he could substantiate his claim before the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that since the workman had failed to lead evidence in spite of various opportunities having been granted to the workman, the Court had no C.W.P.No.15094 of 2008 -3- option but to pass the order thereby closing his evidence. She contends that as there was no evidence against the Management nor any evidence was produced by the workman substantiating his assertions in the demand notice, the Management opted to lead no evidence and closed its evidence by way of giving a statement before the Labour Court. She, therefore, supports the award passed by the Labour Court on this ground. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the zimni orders (Annexure P-5) which have been referred to by the counsel for the petitioner. This is a hard case where the workman indeed has taken all precautions which were required of him to lead his evidence and the onus having been discharged by him, the records as called for by the Labour Court to be produced by the Management, various dates were sought by the Management to produce the records. Having failed to do so and the Court having granted them various opportunities, this Court is of the opinion that at least one opportunity more should have been granted to the workman to finally produce his evidence as by non- grant of one more opportunity to him, a great prejudice has been caused to the workman as he was relying upon the Management to produce the records, which assurance all through the Management had been giving to the Court during the proceedings before the Labour Court. In view of this situation, I am of the considered view that the award dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The case is remanded to the Labour Court, Hisar, for fresh C.W.P.No.15094 of 2008 -4- decision by giving two effective opportunities to the petitioner-workman to produce his complete evidence in the facts of this case. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Hisar on 1.4.2009. March 06, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No