IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3426 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.5.2011 Ram Parkash … Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Pravindra Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the workman. His reference against his termination from service with effect from 5.4.2006 is pending before the Labour Court, Ambala. He is aggrieved with order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Labour Court dismissing his application for additional evidence. Heard. Petitioner was dismissed from service mainly on the ground that he while working as Driver with the Haryana Roadways had caused accidents resulting into his conviction. He pleaded in his application that he had obtained information under the RTI Act that similarly situated drivers who have also been convicted and sentenced in similar cases are still in service and therefore, he wants to lead evidence in this context. The application is at a quite belated stage but certainly, it would help the labour Court to decide the controversy that has been raised by the petitioner. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. The application is though delayed but the other party can very well be compensated with costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the learned labour Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner-workman to lead his evidence as stated above; however, subject to payment of costs of C.R. No. 3426 of 2011 -2- Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the other side. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 27, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE