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. LHR‑232 of 1984, decided on 22nd October, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 36 & 38(3‑a) ‑ Practice and procedure Evidence Additional evidence sought to produce copies of letters from record of Registrar of Court‑Official of Registrar requested to be summoned‑Diet money not deposited‑Court, held, not expected to know pay of Government servant sought to be summoned and party has to inform Court of same and to get order of Court for its deposit‑Usually one day's pay and travelling charges to be deposited---Copies of letters sought to be produced otherwise admissible in evidence‑Direction of Court for Registrar to supply copies should have been obtained instead of summoning official of Registrar‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in closing case on next date when additional evidence was not present-- Labour Court once closing case no second application for addi tional evidence could be made--Order of Labour Court rejecting second application, upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal.
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 20th October, 1984.
The petitioner informs under section 38(3‑a) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the orders, dated 10th March, 1984 and 24th July, 1984 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore are without jurisdiction, illegal and improper.
2. After the parties had closed their evidence the petitioner moved on 21st January, 1984 an application for additional evidence. The evidence sought to be produced was copy of two letters from the record of the Registrar and for the production of the same the official concerned was requested to be summoned. Copy of the statement of the respondent recorded by the Court in some other case was also sought to be produced and for the production of the same record keeper of the Court was requested to be summoned. The application was allowed but the required evidence was not got summoned for 10th March, 1984 with the result that the Court closed the case of both the parties and adjourned the case to 23rd April, 1984 for arguments on the main case. Another application was given for summoning the witnesses but the learned lower Court disallowed it.
3. It has been argued that the Court had to summon the witness for 10th March, 1984 so the case could not be closed. The argument has no force. The petitioner did not deposit the diet money without which the witnesses could not be summoned. Usually one day's pay and travelling charges are deposited. The Court is not expected to know what is the pay of a Government servant sought to be summoned as witnesses. So the party has to inform the Court about it and to get the order for the deposit to the same. The other thing is that if merely copies were to be produced and were admissible in evidence without calling the original, then direction should have been obtained from the Court to the Registrar to supply the copies and an applica tion for supply of copy of evidence should have been made to Court No. 2 instead of summoning the employees of the Registrar and the Court. So the learned lower Court was justified in closing the case when on 10th March, 1984 additional evidence was not present. When once the Court had closed the case no second application for additional evidence could be made. So, the impugned order is not suffering from any legal infirmity for which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be con sidered necessary.
4. As a result, the revision is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer