KURUKSHETRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this revision petition, the petitioner-Bank has challenged the impugned orders dated 16.12.2009 and 03.03.2010 whereby the evidence of the petitioner-management has been closed by order of the Court.

(2.) IT may be relevant to point out at this stage that though petitioner has also sought a direction to direct the Labour Court, Ambala to order the respondent-workman to lead his evidence in the first instance. However, in the present petition the petitioner is confining this revision petition only for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2009 and 03.03.2010, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that the technicalities of the procedural law should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there were sufficient reasons for allowing the petitioner one more opportunity to complete his evidence as no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-workman as he is yet to start leading his evidence and he can very well be compensated with costs.