Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-69 of 1975, heard on 4th December, 1975.

-- S. 36-Pleadings and procedure-Party seeking indulgence from Court should not be guilty of negligence of laches-Party adopting dilatory tactics by seeking adjournments from time to time-Labour Court refusing to recall witnesses for cross-examination-Court's order in view of non-cooperative conduct of party, held, warranted no interference.

Syed Izhar Ahmad for Appellant.

Samiullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th December 1975.

This appeal has been filed under section 37(3), I. R. O. against the order of the Labour Court refusing to recall the witness for cross-examination.

2. The appellant-Union raised an industrial dispute by serving notices of demands and strike and proceedings were taken. Conciliation proceedings having failed, an application was made to the Labour Court for the determination and the adjudication of the demands. The demands were resisted by the respondent.

3. Parties filed affidavits. The applicant sought an adjournment to cross-examine the witness produced on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, 20^th February 1975 was fixed but no progress was made as case was adjourned on the application made on behalf of the appellant. Even on subsequent hearings the cross-examination could not be taken up on the same grounds. Finally on 7^th May 1975 the Labour Court closed the side and fixed the case for arguments. On the adjourned hearing an application was made on behalf of the appellant for cancelling the previous order and allowing an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. No progress was made for a few hearings and on 30th July 1975 again the adjournment was sought but it was rejected and impugned order was passed rejecting the request for reopen ing the case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that there is no justification for interference in the order passed by the Labour Court. The record of case diary of the Labour Court shows in unmistakable terms that the appellant had been adopting dilatory tactics by seeking adjournments from time to time. When the impugned order was passed there had been 25 hearings and out of them 19 adjournments were granted to accommodate the appellant. If any party desires to seek an indulgence from the Court it should not be guilty of negligence or laches. A In the present case it is clear that the appellant's conduct was non-cooperative which deserves no consideration. Consequently no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Labour Court.

5. In result the appeal is dismissed and the case is sent back to the Labour Court for disposal on merits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.