RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been presented seeking to quash the orders dated August 30, 2003, july 7, 2004 and October 6, 2004 and to direct the respondent No. 1 to provide a chance to the petitioner-workman to lead evidence. The petitioner-workman is the employee of the respondent No. 2. His services came to be terminated vide order dated June 5, 1991. The petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute. An application under Section 33 (2) (b)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was presented by the respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 1 for approval of the termination order. The petitioner (respondent therein)was notified. The respondent No. 1, industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal')directed the respondent No. 2 to lead his evidence which was led. Thereafter the petitioner-workman was directed to lead his evidence on April 23, 2003. He was provided another chance to lead evidence on July 30, 2003 but he could not produce his evidence. The petitioner-workman's evidence was closed on August 30, 2003.

(2.) THE petitioner-workman filed an application for opening his evidence on september 18, 2003 supported by his affidavit for recalling the order dated August 30, 2003. The Tribunal vide order dated July 7, 2004 rejected the second application on the ground that similar type of application stood rejected previously on August 30, 2003. The petitioner-workman filed another application on September 2, 2004 for recalling the order of rejection of the applications and for leading evidence which stood also rejected vide order dated October 6, 2004.

(3.) THE respondents have filed the reply stating therein that the petitioner-workman was provided ample opportunity by the Tribunal to lead evidence. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and coined an excuse of his illness. His evidence has rightly been closed. The application filed for leading evidence and recalling of the order dated August 30, 2003 was not supported by an affidavit and the presiding Officer was right in rejecting the application and subsequent applications also.