Satnam Singh Petitioner v. Presiding Officer & Anr. S

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh vide which the application moved by the petitioner to lead additional evidence stands dismissed.

The petitioner sought reference against termination of his services which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for adjudication. Pleaded case of the petitioner was that his name was changed as Satwinder Singh in place of Satnam Singh while showing him on the roll in the month of February, 2001. He wanted to summon the Hand Writing Expert to verify handwriting on Ex.MW 1. He further sought to summon JE, Sub Division Water Supply No. 9, Sector-19, Chandigarh along with original muster roll from 1.2.2001 to 29.2.2001 and to know about the whereabouts of alleged Satwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh.

The application was contested on the plea that workman was well aware on 19.12.2002 about Sukhwinder Singh who worked in February, 2001. It was so mentioned in his replication. The evidence of the petitioner was recorded after summoning the official witnesses on 12.3.2003, 20.5.2003, 8.9.2003 and 30.8.2005 Issue of Satwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh was raised in the evidence led by the petitioner.

Learned Labour Court, therefore, found that the plea that his name was changed by the Management from Satnam Singh to Sukhwinder Singh and that his signatures were in his own hand-writing were well within his knowledge. The learned Tribunal, therefore, found that the evidence sought to be led by way of additional evidence was not such which was not within his knowledge at the time of leading evidence, therefore, the application could not be allowed, when the case was fixed for arguments.

Mr. Rajesh Punj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was represented by a representative who was not aware of technicalities of law and that the evidence was necessary for the court to adjudicate the claim of the respective parties, therefore, the impugned order deserved to be set aside.

On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner from the very beginning was that the name of the petitioner was changed, he even led evidence in this regard. Evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence cannot be said to be one which was not within his knowledge. Even though the court has an inherent power to allow additional evidence, still the additional evidence cannot be allowed merely on asking, especially with regard to the fact which is only in dispute and the parties led evidence in respect thereof. The witnesses of the respondent have also been cross-examined by the petitioner on this point.

No merit.

Dismissed.

10.09.2009 (Vinod K. Sharma)

rp Judge