MOOL CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-l, Faridabad. The workman had challenged the order dated 19.12.1990 terminating his services. The Government had referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad, for adjudication. The learned Labour Court had framed three issues, which read as under-

(2.) On issue No. 1 the parties had led evidence and the issue was decided in favour of the workman. In relation to conclusion of evidence on the other two issues, the matter was fixed for recording of the evidence of the workman on various dates. The workman changed his representative/counsel and as many as six adjournments were granted. However, the workman failed to lead any evidence. Consequently, vide order dated 18.5.1998, learned Labour Court closed the evidence :0f the workman and fixed the case for arguments. An application was filed for review of this order on the ground stated in that application. The application for review was dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 7.08.1998, which has been impugned in the present revision petition. In fact the challenge in this revision petition is to the orders dated 18.5.1998 and 7.8.1998.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-workman that the learned Labour Court has erred in not reviewing its order and not granting last opportunity to the present petitioner (workman) to conclude his evidence. While on the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the management that the petitioner was granted more than required opportunities to lead his evidence. It is his total irresponsibility and negligence which has resulted in passing of the order dated 18.5.1998. Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to Clause 8 and 9 of Rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, to contend that at best three opportunities can be granted and not more than of a week's duration for each party to the dispute to conclude its evidence.