C.W.P. No.9947 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9947 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.12.2009 Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition impugns an interim order passed during the course of a trial before the Labour Court when the workman sought for a direction that the management should produce the original enquiry report and he should be permitted to lead additional evidence on the preliminary issue, which on a preliminary issue already held that the enquiry had been fair and proper. 2. The application was filed in the year 2008 to an evidence that had been elicited through a management witness C.W.P. No.9947 of 2009 -2- that there was no Enquiry Officer in the case of the claimant. According to him, the whole of the enquiry report was a fabrication and that could be specifically brought out, if a further opportunity is given to him to adduce additional evidence. 3. The examination of witnesses and the alleged admission was not something new but evidence of the management witness was concluded as early as on 19.03.2002. After that, the case had been adjourned on several occasions and the application itself had been moved only in the year 2008 for letting in additional evidence. The objection of the learned counsel appearing for the management is that the workman has availed several opportunities and the so-called admission was being taken out of context. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that even when the Labour Court entered a finding on a preliminary issue that the enquiry had been fair and proper, it had the benefit of the evidence of the witnesses and the so-called admission of MW-1 cannot, therefore, be reopened again at the instance of the workman. 4. The workman is entitled to urge on the basis of evidence already adduced that the enquiry report cannot be wholly relied and it shall also be permissible for the management to contend otherwise by pointing out that the so-called admission did not betray the contention of the management that there had been an enquiry. It shall be a matter of appreciation on evidence of what C.W.P. No.9947 of 2009 -3- the witnesses had admitted and what inference would be possible by the so-called admission. The workman cannot seek to reopen the whole issue after the matter had been adjourned on several occasions only for arguments and for conclusion of the same. Giving a fresh opportunity at this time will not merely delay the trial process but it will also cause fresh confusion in the statement of witnesses made already. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 14, 2009 Pankaj*