Pharmacia India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ram Avtar

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner-management has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Gurgaon, whereby in reference petition brought by the respondent-workman, evidence of the petitioner- management has been closed by order of the Court.

It is averred that respondent-workman Ram Avtar was engaged by M/s Paramount Security Services Ltd., who had been given contract of providing security at the premises of the petitioner-management. Respondent- workman raised an industrial dispute claiming that he was an employee of the petitioner-management. The reference was filed in the year 2002 and the issues were framed on 27.4.2004. Thereafter it was fixed for workman''s evidence and finally closed on 15.10.2007, i.e. in a span of about 3 years and 6 months. Petitioner-management was to examine three witnesses and for that purpose the first date was fixed as 22.1.2008 and thereafter only two effective opportunities were given i.e. on 10.7.2008 and 2.12.2008. On 2.12.2008 one RW was present and examined on payment of costs. On that date itself vide impugned order evidence of the management was closed by Court order. Hence the present revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that it is wrongly recorded in the impugned order dated 2.12.2008 as well as in the previous order dated 10.7.2008 that it was the last opportunity for completing its evidence as the perusal of the previous orders do not reveal so. It is further contended that the respondent-workman was given six opportunities spread over a period of almost 3-1/2 years whereas the petitioner-management has been provided only three opportunities over a period of little more than one year.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that two more MWs remain to be examined for which one effective opportunity be granted.

It is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it especially in the case of Tribunals to which the procedures of CPC are not strictly applicable.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perusing the record and keeping in view the settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner-management to conclude its entire evidence on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of costs.

For the reasons stated above, present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and petitioners-management granted one effective opportunity, at its own responsibility to conclude its entire evidence on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/ - as costs, to be paid to the respondent-workman by way of demand draft in his favour.

This revision petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent-workman so as to avoid further delay and costs to him. Moreover, respondent is being compensated by way of costs.