SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged an award dated March 27, 2017 passed in Case No. 6 of 2013 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the learned Judge of the Second Labour Court, Kolkata. However, it appears from the submission of Mr. Nayan Rakshit, learned Advocate for the petitioner that his principal challenge is against two orders being order No. 48 dated February 23, 2017 and order No. 49 dated March 02, 2017 respectively, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for adjournment.
(2.) These two orders were preceded by respective two applications. In the first application it was mentioned that the Advocate-on-Record was praying for an adjournment due to severe heart attack of his close relation, for the "greater" interest of justice. This application was rejected by the first order of February 23, 2017. The learned Advocate for the workman opposed the application. That was date fixed for evidence of the company. The learned Judge held that the ground was flimsy and was not clear at all. That the ground was very indefinite, is very obvious from the application itself. It gives no details about who suffered the heart attack, how he was related to the learned Advocate for the petitioner or when the patient suffered it, what was the condition of the patient, etc. These details were held back from the Court presumably out of an idea that adjournment, once prayed for, will be automatic.
(3.) The learned Judge consulted the records and held that several adjournments had already been granted to the company for defending the case. The learned Judge considered that it was not the right stage to adjourn hearing and therefore the application was rejected. The matter was fixed for argument on March 02, 2017. On March 02, 2017 the petitioner came up with another application for allowing the company to cross-examine the workman. It may be mentioned, though the company pleaded that it could not complete the cross-examination of the workman and therefore wanted to get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, it could not do cross-examination on February 23, 2017 due to bypass surgery of son-in-law of the learned Advocate-on-Record.;