MAHESH KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case was adjourned sine-die to enable the counsel to show some law that permission can be granted to the workman for leading some additional evidence. Counsel relies upon Santuram Yadav & Anr. Vs. Secretary, Krishi Upaj M. S. Bemetara & Anr., 2010 2 SCT 77 to say that the case can be remanded to Labour Court for recording additional evidence.

(2.) I have perused the judgment referred to above. The observations in this case were made in the background of the peculiar facts of that case where the compromise was being relied upon, which, inadvertently could not be produced before the Labour Court as well as the High Court. In the instant case, the counsel is seeking permission to place on record his appointment letter, which the petitioner failed to do. His attention is invited to para 7 of the award where while under cross-examination, the workman admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him. He further categorically admitted that he was not possessing any document to prove that he had received any salary from the respondent-department. In this background, the evidence, for production of which permission is sought, clearly was in the knowledge of the petitioner-workman and he admitted that such an evidence is not available. Under the circumstances, the permission sought cannot be granted. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.