CWP No. 16608 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16608 of 2009 Date of decision October 30, 2009 Darshan Pal ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is filed impugning the manner in which the issue has been framed in a case where the misconduct is attributed to the workman and the Labour Court has instead of calling upon the Management to substantiate the grounds alleged by casting the burden on the Management has directed the workman to lead his evidence as though the onus of proof was on the workman. Disputes relating to framing of issues and conduct of trial are essentially matters of procedure to be decided by the Court during the course of the trial of the suit. It shall be inappropriate for the Court to be interfering through writ petitions for according to the aggrieved party what is for the just course in his perception. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites decisions of this Hon'ble Court in Dominant Off-set Private Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and another 1997 (3) RSJ and M/sPunjab Tractors Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, CWP No. 16608 of 2009 2 Labour Court and another reported in Vol. 198 (1) PLR 342 where the procedures in domestic enquiry had been complained as vitiated. In the former case, the learned Judge has also observed that what kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove an issue would be upon the judicial wisdom of the Labour Court. I do not know how these judgments support the case of the workman in any way. In Dominant Off-set Private Ltd.'s case (supra) the Court held that provisions of Evidence Act would afford guidelines, as to how the burden of proof is to be discharged though the said provisions may not be applicable in letter and spirit to the proceedings before Labour Court. In a case where the party was contending that particular action taken by it was justified, the party asserting the existence of a positive fact is supposed to place the material in proof of its existence. The allegation of misconduct on the part of workmen, therefore should be proved by the party alleging the same. 2. The lesson that could be learnt would therefore, be that if the misconduct is attributed to the workman, it shall be on the Management to establish the misconduct. It shall be open for the workman to lead any evidence if he is directed to open his case with such details as are necessary to state as defence and reserve to himself the liberty to let in rebuttal evidence after the Management seeks to led evidence to establish the positive burden of proof of misconduct. I do not think that the question as to how the issue is to be confirmed shall ever be a matter for consideration at the preliminary stage by an intervention through a writ petition. 3. The writ petition under the circumstances is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 30, 2009 archana