Civil Revision No.3719 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3719 of 2009 Date of decision: September 08, 2009 Sewa Singh …..PETITIONER Versus District Forest Officer …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. The present revision is directed against the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat, whereby application filed by the petitioner- workman for leading additional evidence in respect of his attendance record as available with the Territorial Division, Panipat showing his attendance in the Social Forestry Division was disallowed. According to the workman, he had worked for a period of more than 240 days in the Social Forestry Division and, thus, entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. While declining the application for additional evidence, learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner would not be entitled to seek the benefit of his working under two different employers. Also, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to produce the evidence. Civil Revision No.3719 of 2009 -2- Upon notice of the present revision, the respondent stands duly served but none has put in appearance on its behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the impugned order perused. The learned Presiding Officer, while declining the application formed an opinion as to whether the Territorial Division and Social Forestry Division of the office of District Forest Officer would form two different departments or the employment in said divisions fall under the same employer despite the fact that there was no material on the record. A workman is entitled to a fair chance of producing the evidence. If the petitioner is allowed to lead additional evidence, it would not cause any prejudice to the employer. 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 additional evidence by passing a speaking order. (T.P.S.MANN) September 08, 2009 JUDGE Pds.