- (1.) Respondent No. 2 has raised a demand, which was referred to the Labour Court. Respondent No. 2 claims to be a workman of the petitioner. On 15.4.1999, the case came up before the Labour Court and the Labour Court by its order of even date, closed the evidence of the Management. The order is short and the relevant part of the order can be reproduced as under: "Present: Sh. Hoob Lal for the workman Shri Ashok Mangla for the Management ORDER No MW is present despite the fact that the Management was given last opportunity to lead entire evidence. For today, no MW is summoned. Case being old, there is no justification for adjournment of the case for evidence of the Management. Evidence of the Management stands closed. To come up on 15.7.1999 for MWs (sic)"
(2.) The petitioner gave an application Annexure P/3 on the very date for setting aside the order and for affording the opportunity of leading evidence. In the application, it is stated that two witnesses of Management namely Ashok Mangla and O.P. Ahuja were present as witnesses in the case. The affidavit of O.P. Ahuja, Annexure P/4 has been produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 12.8.1999 has rejected the application. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below" "A perusal of the record shows that the evidence of Management was closed since on that day the Management was given last opportunity to lead entire evidence NO MW was present on that day. The present application is not maintainable. If the applicant has got any grievance he can go to the High Court in Revision the same is dismissed. To come up on 3.11.1999 for evidence of the workman".
(3.) Being dis-satisfied with the order, the petitioner filed a Revision petition before this Court. The Revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence his petition has been filed by the petitioner.;