Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑128 of 1976, decided on 28th December 1976.

‑‑ Ss. 36 & 37‑Procedure and pleadings‑Cross‑examination of petitioner‑respondent closed on date fixed for such cross‑examina tion‑No date fixed for evidence on behalf of respondent‑appellant After closing of cross-examination of petitioner case closed because of absence of any witness on behalf of respondent‑Respondent never called upon to produce witnesses for cross‑examination‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside and case remanded for opportunity of production of evidence by respondent‑appellant.

H.A.K. Warsi for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969.

2. The respondent was a permanent Cone Winder in, the factory of the appellant. His service was terminated. He approached the Labour Court, after serving the grievance notice. The parties filed affidavits. On the date of hearing the cross examination of the respondent was concluded and since no witness on behalf of the appellant was present the case was closed and the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.

3. The only plea which has been raised before me on behalf of the appellant is that no opportunity was allowed to the appellant to produce their evidence as the case was fixed for cross‑examination of respondent only and not for the evidence of the appellant as well.

4. I have heard the learned Representative of the appellant as well as the respondent who was present and I am of the view that the plea taken by the appellant has considerable forces. The plea is supported by the case diary commencing from 31‑10‑75. It was clearly written that the case was adjourned to 6‑11‑75 for cross‑examination of the applicant, that is, the respondent in present case. All subsequent hearings were for the same purpose. At no time the appellant was called upon to produce their witness for cross -examination. Consequently the action of the learned Presiding Officer on 27‑4‑76 of closing the side of the appellant on the conclusion of the cross -examination of the respondent was not justified. It seems clear that he com pletely ignored that orders on the previous hearings and the purpose for which the case was fixed. Thus it is plain enough that the appellant was not allowed the opportunity to produce the evidence.

5. In result, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merits after offering an opportunity to the appellant to produce his evidence.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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