RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Ranbaxy Limited (petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an interim order dated 18. 04. 2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator declining it an opportunity to cross-examine the workmen's witnesses and to lead additional evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence produced by the workmen pursuant to order dated 11. 02. 2008.

(2.) HEARD.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that 23 workmen working with the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute for their regularization and the said dispute raised by them was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered as ID No. 130/02/2006. The issues were framed by the Court below on 21. 04. 2003. On behalf of the workmen, two witnesses, namely, Mr. Ved Prakash and Mr. Munna Lal were examined. Out of these two witnesses which were examined by the workmen, one of them, namely, Mr. Ved Prakash did not appear for his further cross-examination by the management and it seems that the authorized representative of the workmen closed the evidence on behalf of the workmen without getting the veracity of their witness Mr. Ved Prakash tested by the management. Thereafter, the petitioner also examined one witness and closed its evidence. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time since 25. 03. 2005 till the time the workmen on their application for additional evidence were permitted vide order dated 11. 02. 2008 to file six more documents and to lead additional evidence. Pursuant to this permission granted to the workmen vide order dated 11. 02. 2008, the workmen examined one more witness, namely, Mr. Girja Shankar, and he was examined on four dates, i. e. , 01. 04. 2008, 09. 05. 2008, 16. 05. 2008 and 29. 05. 2008. The management thereafter moved an application before the Court below that it should be allowed to conduct the remaining cross-examination of the workmen's witness Mr. Ved Prakash and also permit it to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the workmen pursuant to order dated 11. 02. 2008. It is this application that has been rejected vide impugned order.