SAKATTAR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ( Oral)

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that an application for summoning the documents through the employees of the management (F.C.I,Tarn Taran), was moved by the work-men in the year 1993, which remained pending on one pretext or the other till 2003 The said application was allowed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Labour Court and accordingly, the witnesses and the records/documents mentioned therein were summoned. The witnesses alongwith the records of the management (F.C.I,Tarn Taran), could not be summoned earlier as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, was not working regularly, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, another application for summoning the same witnesses as filed earlier in the year 1993, was moved in the year 2003, which has been rejected simply on the ground that the same was vague. Ultimately, another application giving all the details and specific dates of the records to be summoned in this case was moved,but the same was rejected.