RAVI R Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated October 8, 1996, in M. A. No. 107 of 1996, in I. D. No. 68 of 1991, refusing to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence on the petitioner's side and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence in I. D. No. 68 of 1991.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows: Admittedly, documents M-1 to M-8 were marked by consent of both parties. When the matter was posted for arguments, the second respondent-management came with applications I. A. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1995 to seek permission of the first respondent Tribunal to receive the documents and to permit the second respondent-management to examine its officers as witnesses respectively and both the said applications were allowed. Accordingly, M. W-1 was examined and through him documents M-8 to M-18 were marked. The petitioner of course, also cross-examined M. W-1.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner took out an application M. A. No. 107 of 1996 to reopen the case and to examine himself as a witness, which was objected by the second respondent management on two grounds: (1) that the petitioner had already cross-examined MW-1; and (ii) that the petitioner failed to produce the original certificates when he was called to report before the Personnel Officer on or before October 21, 1991, and even when the petitioner reported before the Personnel Officer on October 24, 1991, and October 26, 1991, he did not produce the original certificates and therefore, the petitioner could not be permitted to examine himself as a witness to mark the documents which he failed to produce before the Personnel Officer.