HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, LTD., MADRAS (BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER) Vs. THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS, AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are preferred against three orders passed by the first respondent holding that no valid ground is made out -

(2.) Second respondent was employed as a driver under petitioner-corporation, and on 31 Dec. 1968, he was dismissed from service on a charge of theft of oil. He raised an industrial dispute, and on being referred in Industrial Dispute No. 166 of 1969, it was dismissed upholding the order of dismissal. He filed Writ Petition No. 2207 of 1972, and it was also dismissed. He preferred Writ Appeal No. 192 of 1977, which was ultimately allowed on 8 Dec. 1982, quashing the order of dismissal, but without any directions regarding reinstatement or about payment of arrears of salary and other benefits. Second respondent then filed Claim Petition No. 79 of 1983, before the first respondent under section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of benefits which had accrued and payable to him. He was examined on 16 March 1985. He was cross-examined on 11 April 1985, and on that day petitioner herein made an endorsement that it has no oral evidence. The evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments on 16 April 1985. Thereafter, it stood adjourned to 27 April 1985. It was on 16 April 1985 itself, the aforesaid three applications were filed stating that it has now come to its knowledge that the second respondent was/is working with a tourist operator as a driver subsequent to his dismissal, and this fact of himself being otherwise employed having a bearing on the case, in the interests of justice, the management should be permitted to file an additional counter affidavit and that it could not file it earlier as it had no knowledge about himself being employed anywhere. First respondent holding that petitioner had not given reasons:

(3.) Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner-management, submits that the petition filed in Feb. 1983, having been posted for enquiry on various dates and finally only on 16 March 1985, actual hearing having begun and after the examination of the claimant it having been posted to 1 April 1985, for cross-examination ; within fifteen days therefrom a request having been made to reopen the matter because of certain particulars having been gathered about the gainful employment of the claimant elsewhere during the relevant period, and which would result in truth being disclosed to Court, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the request of the petitioner, particularly when there could be no loss of time in either recording his evidence or in entertaining the evidence which petitioner proposed to adduce. Having adjourned the matter from 16 to 27 April 1985, by ten days, in the meanwhile, the opportunity asked for could have been extended, and which would have enabled the Court to find out the truth of the claim made by it.