STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANTILAL GHELABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.J. Shah learned Asst. Government Pleader and Mr. Paul learned Advocate for the respondent. With the consent of and at the request of the parties petition is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) RULE . Mr. Paul learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) THE dispute raised by the respondent culminated into reference being (LCR) No. 235 of 1995. The respondent filed his statement of claim to the aforesaid effect, however the petitioner ignored the notice issued by the Court and neglected the proceedings. Though the notice was duly served (labour Court has taken into account report of bailiff which clarified that the notice was served on 11th August, 1995), the petitioner herein did not Supreme Today With All High Courts Page 1 of 3 file any written statement. The deposition of the respondent was recorded, however there was no one on behalf of the petitioner to subject the respondent to cross -examination and respondent's evidence remained undisputed and uncotroverted. Thereafter respondent gave an application requesting the Court to close the stage of cross -examination. The order to that effect was passed. Even at that stage no one from the petitioner's side cared to attend the proceedings and after failure in filing written statement the petitioner failed to produce any witness/oral evidence also. Thus, upon request of the respondent, the stage of petitioner's oral evidence was also closed. An application was given on behalf of the petitioner to permit cross - examination of the respondent and though the same was granted, no one thereafter conducted cross -examination of the respondent and no one even cared to produce any oral evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the assertion and evidence of the respondent in all manner remained uncontroverted, undisputed and unchallenged and it was not disputed. Subsequently nobody attended the proceedings even to advance argument wherein the petitioner could have at least dealt with assertion by the respondent. Hence, the labour Court was left with no alternative but to pass an award.