Re-Examination in Grievance Petition

PLJ 1997 Tr.C. (Labour) 171 [Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore ] Present: JUSTICE (RETD.) MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION and SECURITY WATER & SANITATION AGENCY F.D.A. FAISALABAD-Petitioner versus FARUKH SAGHEER-Respondent Revision Petition No. FD-162/96, dismissed on 24.11.1996. (i) Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1.969)- —-S. 25-A read with Order XLI, Rule 27 and Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C.- Grievance petition-Re-examination of witness-Appliation for--Rejection of-Challenge to-If such practice is allowed, sanctity of court proceedings will be set at naught and a party desirous of brining on record certain evidentiary material in accordance with his interests and wishes will get latitude to make such bids again and again; but such venture obviously would vitiate whole process, and other party to litigation certainly will adversely be affected; and this in turn would entail mis-carriage of justice. [P. 172] A (ii) Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969)- —-S. 25-A read with order XLI Rule 27 and Order XVHI Rule 17 C.P.C.- Grievance petition--Re-examiantion of a witness-Application for- Rejection of-Challenge to-There is a provision of production of additional evidence in appellant court (O. XLI, R. 27 CPC) as also for re- examination of a witness by the trial court (0. XVIII, R. 17 CPC)--T.hese provisions, however, are quite rarely to be availed of, and only with a view to assist the court in arriving at a correct and just decision and for advancement of ends of fairplay and justice-Such exercise has not to be undertaken in routine and in casual fashion-When some new evidentiary material, not in existence already, springs up or is discovered at a later stage, and it has absolute relevance to the matter in controversy or when court finds itself handicapped in certain respects, it is empowered to re­ call a witness for re-examination or to call upon parties to lead more evidence on being moved by a party, or even suo moto— Petition dismissed. [P. 173] B Syed Sajjad, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ikram Zahid, Advocate for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24.11.1996. JUDGMENT By way of his revision petition, soundness of an order dated 14.3.1996, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, in the course of proceedings of a petition filed under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by one Farukh Sagheer, Sub Engineer, against the 'Authorities' of WASA/FDA, has been called in question. The respondent before the Labour Court, the revision-petitioner here, made a request to the Labour Court for re-examining a witness, RW-1, who was found to have committed errors in making his statement and correction thereof was required, according to the learned counsel for the establishment. Some additional evidence was also intended to be adduced. The learned lower court has observed that there is no provision in law, empowering a court to grant such permission. How can a witness be enabled to amend or modify or improve upon his version? If such practice is allowed, sanctity of the court proceedings will be set at naught and a party desirous of bringing on record certain evidentiary material in accordance with his interests and wishes will get the latitude to make such bids again and again; but such venture obviously would vitiate the whole process, and the other party to the litigation certainly will adversely be affected; and this in turn would entail mis-carriage of justice.

2. The respondent before the Labour Court, in this case, had dosed the evidence, and this must be taken to be a well-considered and a material step, which would leave little room for re-opening of the case. There is provision for production of additional evidence, in appellate court ( Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C.), as also for re-examination of a witness by the trial court (Order XVIII, rule 17, C.P.C.) These provisions however are quite rarely to be availed of, and only with a view to assist the court in arriving at a correct and just decision and for advancement of ends of fair-play and justice. Such excise has not to be undertaken in routine and in casual fashion When some new evidentiary material, not in existence already, springs up or is discovered at a later stage, and it has absolute relevance to the matter in controversy or when the court finds itself handicapped in certain respects, it is empowered to re-call a witness for re-examination or to call upon the parties to lead more evidence on being moved by a party, or even suo moto.

3. It is, however, to be borne in mind that such an eventuality I more the need or requirement of the court, than it is the right or entitlement of a party to the litigation; and the primary object is search for reality, a mission of fact-finding, and objective dispensation of justice, which is the ultimate end of process of court and machinery of administration of justice. Well, all such elements appear to be lacking in the instant case; and no cogent reasons were stated in the court below by the learned counsel for the respondent for grant of the un-usual prayer made there. The employer could cot be allowed to fill up the lacunae or gaps in his evidence, to make amends for his errors and lapses, and to amend or rectify the testimony, which suffers in certain respects. If the statement of a witness of the establishment was going to prejudice its cause, it had to blame none else but itself, and it could not be helped there. It would of course be open to the learned counsel to furnish an explanation in that regard, in an effort to convince the court, as regards genuineness or correctness of its cause, and about infirmity or un- soundness of the pleas taken up by the official. Request contained in the application under Section 151 C.P.C. had also been made too late in the day, when final arguments in the case before the Labour Court had already been addressed, twice in fact. Copy of the statement of the witness has been tendered, and it is sought to be extensively amended or altered, which incidence would be absolutely odd and un-usual indeed.

4. The impugned order has been rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court , on application of mind, and on correct appreciation of the question raised before him; and it does not call for any interference. The revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. (K.A.B) Appeal dismissed.