AMIRA FOODS (I) LTD Vs. NIVEDITA CHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which revolves around the present controversy is whether the respondent/workman should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses at the stage of final arguments. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had already advanced the final arguments before the labour court. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the order passed by the labour court on 28th September, 2007, which goes to show that the labour court had heard final arguments on behalf of the Management but the arguments on behalf of the Workman was yet to be heard.

(2.) On 12th October, 2007, the labour court heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties on the application moved by the workman, wherein she prayed that she be permitted to cross-examine MW-1 and MW-2. The labour court after considering the facts concluded that no cross examination of MW-1 and MW-2 was done by the AR of the workman and only some suggestions were put to the witnesses. The labour court was of the opinion that the workman cannot be made to suffer on account of the negligence of the AR of the workman and consequently, it allowed the application moved by the workman. Aggrieved by that order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn my attention towards the following extracts of para No. 7 of the authority Bhagwan Dass Chopra v. United Bank of India and Others, 1988 AIR(SC) 215 :-