Partly allowed

Sumeet Sofat v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2012CWP/5538/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order dismissing the claim for non-production of evidence after a delay, directing the appellant to pay `5,000 costs to secure one last opportunity for evidence production.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside subject to payment of `5,000 costs to workman; if unpaid, original order to stand confirmed. Tribunal to grant one last opportunity for evidence.

Sumeet Sofat Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No. 5538 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 5538 of 2012 Date of decision September 20, 2012

¶5

The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surinder Kumar and another

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. O. P. Dabla, DAG.,Punjab.

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶16

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶17

The Industrial Tribunal has found the delay in producing the evidence in a case which was more than 10 years old to be a circumstance not to allow any further opportunity for the management witnesses. The Tribunal had observed that the evidence for the Management witness was posted for 11.1.2010 and it was getting periodically adjourned at the request of the counsel for the Management till 23.4.2012 and even when on that day he did not produced the evidence the Court closed the evidence and directed the case to come up for arguments. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the State

¶19

¶20

CR No. 5538 of 2012

¶21

contends that one last opportunity could be granted. The matter relates to a claim under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act where it is contended that the Management wants to produce a document to show that the claim of the workman was not justified and that the interest of the State is not lost by the laxity on the part of the witnesses, I direct that the impugned order is set aside on condition that the appellant shall pay `5,000/- as costs to the workman or his counsel within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such payment the Industrial Tribunal shall grant one last opportunity for production of witnesses and document that the State wants to tender, if the amount is not paid as directed, the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in this revision petition will stand confirmed. The order is passed dispensing with notice to the respondent having regard to the fact that no further time is lost for an expeditious disposal of the case.

¶22

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶23

September 20, 2012 archana

Sumeet Sofat v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumeet Sofat v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Singh Vs Financial Commissioner (a) and Ors.

Yog Raj Karan Singh & Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Punjab

Gurcharan Singh Handa Vs Managing Director, H.S.M.I.C.

Raghbir Singh Vs Cement Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.

Amit Masih and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.