Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑23 of 1982, decided on 20th March, 1982.

‑ Ss. 36 & 38(3‑a)‑Procedure and practice‑Recording additional evidence‑Case of party closed‑‑Additional evidence in form of a document sought to be produced subsequently within knowledge of party before closing its evidence‑Plea that counsel of party did not properly conduct case and failed to decide that whole evidence had been produced‑Held: Cannot be a ground for indulgence and further prolonging a case already hanging fire for a pretty long time Order of Labour Court disallowing such additional evidence, in circumstances, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity and did not require interference in revision by Appellate Tribunal.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioners.

Date of hearing : 8th March, 1982.

In this revision the order, dated 19th December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the application for additional evidence was disallowed.

2. The case has a very old history. The respondent was removed from service in 1969 and he joined the Army and became the prisoner of War. On return he requested for being taken back in service on the strength of a settlement, dated 2nd March, 1972. He was reinstated by the order of the then Junior Labour Court. The appeal challenging the said order was dismissed, but writ petition was. accepted and the case was remanded for re‑decision The petitioner applied for recording evidence on preliminary points before the trial of the case on merits. The applica tion remained un-successful but the revision was accepted and the case was remanded. Preliminary objections were decided on 19th November, 1978 against the petitioner and appeal preferred to this Tribunal also failed. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the written reply were made for raising objections namely, that the petitioner being a corporate body, its officers could not be proceeded against in their individual capacity, that the grievance notice was not served on the employer and lastly that the respondent had received full and final payments as a result of a settlement and thus was estopped from agitating the question of reinstatement. The amendment was allowed vide order, dated 11th January, 1981 on payment of costs and the case was fixed for evidence. On 6th June, 1981 both the parties by making statements closed their evidence. The case was adjourned for arguments on three or four dates. Thereafter, the application for additional evidence was made from the decision of which the present revision arises.

3. The ground given in the petition is that the counsel, who made the statement closing the case was under the impression that evidence had been recorded on the whole case, but in fact this was not the position. This is apparent that the learned counsel, who did not produce complete evidence, was negligent in not looking into the case to see whether the evidence had been produced on the whole case or not.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was allowed by the lower Court to produce copy of a document filed in the other case directing that the said copy, if produced, be marked as Exh. P. 1 and that unless the petitioner had seen that copy, it could not decide if the evidence be closed or not. I do not find any force in this argument. If the learned counsel wanted to see the document he should not have closed the evidence. Moreover, he could look into the document attached to the connected case before making the statement. The only thing to be examined was whether there was any settlement and if so, whether according to the same, the respondent could be taken back in service. The respondent pro duced evidence on facts and the witnesses examined by him were duly cross- examined. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner's counsel did not know whether the evidence on facts of the case had been produced by the respondent and was to be rebutted. The copy of the settlement is on the file. The original is on the other file in which the petitioner is a party.

It, therefore, cannot be pleaded that the petitioner had no knowledge of they said document. It, therefore, cannot be said that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the lower Court. If the learned counsel in charge of the case did not properly conduct the case, this cannot be a ground for indulgence and further prolonging the case, which is hanging fire upon the respondent for a pretty long time. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not require any interference. It cannot be said that the order suffers from any legal infirmity. I, therefore, refrain to exercise revisional jurisdiction and dismiss the revision petition in limine.

M. I.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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