IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1090/2011 Date of decision: 3.3.2011 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ....................Petitioner v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Camp at Panchkula and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Partap Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/management has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, Camp at Panchkula whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by just giving three opportunities in a span of 1½ months and it was very difficult for the management to lead the entire evidence within that short span of time. It is further stated that the counsel for the petitioner was injured and unable to attend the Court and as such the evidence of the petitioner could not be closed. In these circumstances, it is prayed that management/petitioner be granted three months' time to conclude its entire evidence, as has been permitted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in identical matters bearing CR No.1164 to 1166 of 2011 disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2011. After hearing the learned counsel, I deem it just and expedient in the interest of justice to grant one last effective opportunity to the management/petitioner to conclude its entire evidence since it is well settled principle of law that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice meant to serve the cause of justice and not to impede the same. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2010 closing the evidence of the management/petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last effective opportunity to lead its entire evidence at its own responsibility on a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. This, shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- payable to the respondent/workman by way of demand draft. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent/workman as it would result in unnecessary delay in the matter and expenses to him. In any case, respondent/workman is being compensated by way of costs. 3.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge