HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W. P [Cl No. 644 of 2010 0 / pETrrIONER MR. K. Sin‘gh, s/o Shri Ranjit Singh Aged about 52 years, Senior Agriculture Extension Office, Kota, Bilaspur (C.G). Vs. RESPONDENTS 1 Deputy Director, Agriculture, Composite Building Bilaspur (C.G). Sub—Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G). 3. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Labour Court, Bilaspur(C.G). wM WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. S. P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer, for respondents l 85 2. ORAL ORDER (11.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard finally with the consent of counsel for both the parties. Petitioner R.K. S'n h has filed this petition challenging the validity of order dated $4.0l.2010 passed by the Commissioner, ’ Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G) in case No. 07/WCA/COC—1—B/O7 \(N.F) Claim. By the aforesaid order the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for calling one Sandeep Tiwari as his witness in support of his ' claim petition. l W.P(C ) No.644/201 0 It appears that the petitioner examined himself before the Labour Court on 18.05.2009 and thereafter, he declared his evidence closed. When the matter came up for further hearing on 21.7.2009 the petitioner filed an application for giving him an opportunity to call Dr. Sandeep Tiwari, Sankalp Netra Chikits'alaya, Bustand, near Nav—Bharat Press, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur as his Witness. The Labour Court took a View that since the petitioner had closed his evidence on 18.5.2009, therefore, he cannot file such an application and he cannot be permitted to call his witnesses. The View taken by the Labour Court appears to be unreasonable. It is stated at Bar that‘ even after closing evidence of the petitioner, the respondents have not examined their witnesses and the petitioner filed his application 0n 21.07.2009. Since the respondents had not entered into their evidence and no prejudice was likely to cause to the respondents and further looking to the nature of claim preferred before the Labour Court, the labour court ought to have allowed the application dated 21.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) and it ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to lead his further evidence with a view to give complete justice to the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 04.01.2010 so far as it relates to dismissing the application dated 21.7.2009 is set aside. It is directed that the Labour, Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to call the aforementioned single witness and then shall afford the opportunity to the respondents to rebut the evidence. of the petitioner and thereafter shall decide the matter on merits. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/_ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao