Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. QSA‑152 of 1984, decided on 27th May, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Additional evidence‑ Documents sought to be produced already in knowledge of petitioner and he though could explain them in his statement failed to do so‑‑Case already three years old‑‑Discretion exercised by Labour Court in dis allowing additional evidence, in circumstances, held, not un-judicious and interference in revision refused by Appellate Tribunal.

Aamar Aziz Saiyed for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 27^th May, 1984.

The order, dated 26‑4‑1984 rejecting the application for additional evidence has been challenged in this revision. Certain overtime warrants and leave applications bearing the signatures of the petitioner are sought to be produced. The documents, according to the petitioner, bear the signatures of Muhammad Sarwar, Manager also but R.W. 1 denied this fact. The petitioner wants to produce Muhammad Sarwar, Manager, to admit his signatures on the said documents. The petitioner does not deny his signatures of the documents. It is up to the learned lower Court to consider in which capacity the petitioner signed the said documents. Since the documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner, he was in a position to explain them in his statement. As the case is three years old whereas labour cases are to be preferably decided within 7 days, the discretion to disallow additional evidence in the above discussed circumstances does not appear to have been exercised un-judiciously. When the petitioner has a right of appeal, if the case goes against him, it is not necessary to interfere at this stage.

2. The revision is rejected.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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