IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1407 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 30th November, 2011. Suresh Kumar Petitioner through Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute against respondent No.2 – College which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court at Panipat. The petitioner failed to adduce any evidence despite four opportunities granted by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Consequently, his evidence was closed and for lack of sufficient material, the reference has been answered against him vide the impugned award dated 27.01.2009. The workman has approached this Court highlighting the circumstances which prevented him to produce the evidence, along with an affidavit of the Advocate also to the effect that the witnesses were present but he could not produce them as he was held-up in some other court case. Respondent No. 2 has filed its reply/affidavit opposing the petitioner's prayer on the plea that sufficient and adequate opportunities were granted to him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner – workman though was given reasonable opportunities by the Labour Court to adduce evidence, nevertheless it will be in the interest of justice and equity to grant him two more effective opportunities to produce his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility. Since respondent No. 2 has been burdened with this litigation due to carelessness of the petitioner-workman, I burden him with the costs of `3000/-, which the petitioner shall tender on the date of appearance before the Labour Court. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 21.07.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat for decision afresh and in accordance with law, after giving two more opportunities to the petitioner to produce his entire evidence at his risk and responsibility, however, subject to payment of `3000/- as costs. The management shall also be granted adequate opportunities to lead its defence evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Panipat on 16.01.2012. Disposed of. Dasti. November 30, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE