C.R.No.3902 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.19897-CII of 2009 in C.R.No.3902 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 06.11.2009 Raj Rani ........ Petitioner Versus District Forest Officer (Social) Assandh Road, Panipat ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Sharma, DAG Haryana, for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M.No.19897-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.3902 of 2009 The worklady-petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, (in short “the Tribunal”) vide which the evidence of the petitioner for calling the record of her attendance as additional C.R.No.3902 of 2009 (O&M) evidence was declined. The petitioner has claimed that she worked for more than 240 days with the respondent and was, therefore, entitled to the benefits of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal while declining the application of additional evidence observed that the petitioner was not entitled to seek the benefit of her working days under two different employers and that there had been an inordinate delay on her part to produce the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the similar circumstances, an identical order passed by the Tribunal was impugned by the petitioner therein by way of filing Civil Revision No.3722 of 2009, decided on 6.8.2009, wherein this Court while setting aside the order declining the application for leading additional evidence had observed as under: “Accordingly, the revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the application of the workman for leading additional evidence is allowed. He is granted permission to produce evidence regarding his attendance by producing cogent evidence. However, under the garb of additional evidence, the workman shall not delay the conclusion of the trial or indulge in fishing enquiries. In the event of the workman engaging in such a practice, it will be open to the learned Presiding Officer to decline the production of C.R.No.3902 of 2009 (O&M) additional evidence by passing a speaking order.” Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner shall not delay the conclusion of the trial and in case she indulges in such a practice, it will be open to the learned Presiding Officer to decline the production of additional evidence by passing a speaking order. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2009, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidence, with the aforesaid observations. November 06, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE