Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision Petition No. GT‑140 of 1982, decided on 22nd June, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Production of additional evidence‑‑Workman provided opportunity to prove his case before lower Court but he failed to do so‑‑Labour cases are decided without any delay as such workman had no scope to be allowed any opportunity to produce additional evidence‑ Application for such evidence, held, rightly dismissed.
Pervez Malik for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 12th June, 1982.
This revision arises from the order dated 19‑4‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the application for additional evidence made by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is to be proved that the bus went out of order, therefore, the fare was returned to the passengers and the tickets taken back from them. No ground is given why this kind of evidence was not proved when the petitioner was afforded opportunity to prove his case. The petitioner already knew if his contention is correct that the bus had gone out of order and that he had returned the fare and taken back the tickets, therefore, he could have realised that he had to prove this fact. Labour cases are decided without any delay, therefore, there is no scope to allow any opportunity to produce additional evidence. If he had issued fresh tickets to the same or other passengers after the bus was repaired, he could have produced this evidence. Likewise, if he had used same tickets which he had taken back from the passengers and he thereby did not commit any misappropriation, he could call for the said record for the perusal of the court. No reason has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner why the evidence which now is sought to be produced as additional evidence was not produced at the proper time. In these circumstances, the impugned order appears to be just and proper. There is no force in the revision which is dismissed in limine.
M. Y. M.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer