IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18424 of 2009 Date of decision:02.12.2009 R.S.Prasad Singh ....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I, Gurgaon and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 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 application to recall WW-1 was dismissed on the ground that the workman had already been examined in chief through an affidavit and was also cross-examined. The workman however did not affix his signatures when the statement was recorded by the Labour Court and later moved an application to have the assistance of the authorized representative and also contended that he became mentally upset and with no legal advice available to him, he did not have affix his signatures beneath the statement recorded in Court and he was later admitted in hospital. Originally when an application was filed, the management had stated no objections, but later filed an objection stating Civil Writ Petition No.18424 of 2009 - 2 - that such statement was made without understanding true import of the petition. The objection filed by the management was that the statement, which was already made, cannot be wholly withdrawn and answer elicited in the cross-examination cannot be treated as non-est. There is no other substantial objection to the examination of the petitioner. If the workman had left the place without signature, it is hereby directed that the workman shall affix his signatures and the Court may record the fact that the signatures are affixed as per the directions of this Court. The evidence already recorded will not be non-est and any further evidence which is offered by the workman will be treated as additional evidence. Any inconsistency in the statement will be a matter of appreciation by the Labour Court and there shall be full opportunity to the workman to give his statement and subject himself to further cross examination by the management. 2. Having regard to the limited prayer sought in the writ petition, in order to facilitate a quick disposal of the case, I dispense with notice to the respondent and hasten to pass this order even at the stage of admission. The writ petition is allowed with liberty granted to the workman in the manner referred to above. The workman shall also have one opportunity to produce any other evidence which he proposes to bring in support of his case. There shall be however no order as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.12.2009 sanjeev