Jaswant Singh, J.@mdashBy filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon whereby its application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed; with further prayer for grant of one opportunity to lead his evidence.
2. Petitioner-union had raised an industrial dispute and the same is pending before the learned Labour Court-I, Gurgaon against their termination by Respondent No. 2. The demand notice was issued on 23.7.1998 and thereafter the reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court-Respondent No. 1. After completion of pleadings, the issues were framed on 13.11.2007. Thereafter, the evidence of the Petitioner was closed on 28.7.2009 by its authorized representative and the case was adjourned for Respondents'' evidence. At this stage, an application dated 11.2.2010 (P.1) for additional evidence to summon the official witnesses from ESI, Provident Fund, Labour Departments and State Bank of India as well as Respondent No. 2 along with relevant record was filed. Notice of the same was given to the opposite side, who opposed the same. After hearing both the parties, the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.6.2010. Hence the present petition.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that certain documents, which are already on record but due to the negligence and carelessness of the previous authorized representative, some officials of the Government Departments referred in the application as well as from the Respondent-Management could not be examined, hence he has prayed one opportunity to conclude his entire evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has argued that the Petitioner-Union is filing application one after the another and the present one is just to delay the matter and without any basis and the application is vague.
6. The law is well settled that strict rule of evidence is not applicable to the proceedings pending in a Labour Court for adjudication of the matter under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 yet the general principles of preponderance of evidence are applicable to decide the matter in controversy.
7. Admittedly and undisputedly, in the present case the evidence of the management was yet to be started but at the same time, the evidence of the Petitioner-Union was closed by its representative on 28.7.2009 after exhausting considerable period for more than two years. Learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has observed that neither the Petitioner had exercised the due diligence nor is it proved that the evidence, which is sought to be produced by the Petitioner, was not within their knowledge at the relevant time. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Presiding Officer for the reasons that the Petitioner-Union has filed the fourth application and even the application dated 11.2.2010 is absolutely vague and does not disclose as to who is the official sought to be examined and which is the record that is to be proved by the concerned witness. If the documents as admitted by the Petitioner itself are already on record, then it can be safely concluded that the Petitioner-Union as well as its representative was having the knowledge of the witnesses, which are sought to be produced in the additional evidence. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is not an ordinary remedy to interfere in routine against an order for declining the prayer of leading additional evidence like present one in an industrial dispute thereby giving an unnecessary liverage to the litigant who is not even diligent much less to say due diligent while pursuing his case before an Industrial Tribunal.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
