IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 834 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 19, 2009. M/S Inder Mal Lachman Dass. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and others. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition the order impugned is dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure-P-3) vide which the application of the petitioner for adducing additional evidence has been rejected by the Court. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not produce his complete evidence before the Labour Court and the Labour Court closed his evidence. It has further been contended that counsel for the petitioner died on 29.07.2008, therefore, the matter could not be proceeded. The application for leading additional evidence was, therefore, filed on 17.10.2008. The said application has been dismissed by the Labour Court and he relied upon Rule 15 to contend that the Labour Court can under the said rule accept and admit call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings before it and in such manner as it may think fit. He further relies upon Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act to submit that it is the discretion of the Court wherever it is of the opinion that it can be just and proper for the adjudication of the case, the evidence could be taken. He C.W.P. No. 834 of 2009. relies upon the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Machine Tools Limited Versus T. Bal Reddy and another, 2002-II L.L.J 165. There can be no dispute as far as the proposition as submitted by counsel for the petitioner is concerned. It is for the Labour Court to see as to whether the said evidence is required for just and proper adjudication of the case and further the intention with which the application has been filed. It is not in dispute that the evidence of the petitioner was closed much before the death of the representative of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the case is fixed for final disposed before the Labour Court tomorrow. The application for adducing additional evidence was filed on 17.10.2008 which was rejected by the Labour Court on 10.12.2008. The Court has on consideration of the contention put forth by the petitioner has given reasons that the respondent management at the time of leading additional evidence was aware of and had knowledge about the witnesses who were to be produced in support of their stand before the Labour Court. The evidence having been closed and when the matter is fixed for final disposal at this belated stage, the said application for additional evidence could not be allowed. The court has exercised its discretion as per the authority granted by the Act and Rules framed thereunder. I do not see any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 19,2009. sjks. -2-