AWADHESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. An industrial dispute between the petitioner and O. P. No. 2 is pending f ,r adjudication before O. P. No. 1 in which one of the points to be decided is as to whether the petitioner was under the em ployment of O. P. No. 2 or not. in that connection on the request of the petitioner an inspection note dated 8-6-1990 prepared by the Labour Inspector while inspecting the shop of O. P. No. 2, had been summoned. The labour Inspector instead of sending the original inspection note, sent photo copy thereof to the Labour Court at because that inspection note was required elsewhere also. At the time of evidence, the petitioner did not get it proved under a mistaken belief that it was a public document not required to be proved. The O P. No. 2 moved an application before the Labour Court for sealing that unproved document under Rule 22 of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts Rules of Procedure, 1967. That application was allowed by means of order dated 28-11-1995. On the same day the petitioner applied for recalling the said order with permission to prove the said inspection note which has been rejected by the labour court by means of its impugned order dated 9-4-1996 against which this petition has been filed.

(2.) IT does not appear necessary to keep the writ petition pending and to issue notice to O. P. No. 2 as the writ petition can be finally dispos ed of at this stage. IT is true that it was the duty of the petitioner to prove the inspection note dated 8-6-1990 of the labour Inspector and mere pro duction of photo copy was not sufficient. However, the courts are required to do justice between the parties. For the petitioner it is an important piece of evidence to prove that he was in the employment of O. P. No. 2. The petitioner should not be deprived of availing the benefit, if any, which may accrue to him by getting the said document proved.