Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Ajmer dated 2.3.2005.
(2.) PETITIONER workman as alleged in the petition was appointed on daily wages basis in the year 1996 and his services were terminated w.e.f., 1st August, 1998. However, initially no dispute, award was passed by the Tribunal on 23rd July, 2001 but immediately on application being filed by the petitioner workman on 23rd August, 2001 the matter was restored and claim petition was taken on record. Written statement, was submitted by the respondents after availing six opportunities on 16th July, 2002. Petitioner also submitted his documents and his affidavit in examination -in -chief along with the application under order XII Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure requesting the respondent employer seeking production of certain documents mentioned therein. On 8th July, 2003 however petitioner could not appear for cross -examination on account some personal reasons hence his evidence pertaining to cross -examination was closed on 15.9.2004 but at the same time, respondent employer also submitted affidavit of Itwari Lal in support of their defence on 26th October, 2004 but failed to produce their evidence for cross - examination which too was closed on 29.1.2005. Thus, on the basis of material which came on record and in the absence of evidence the petitioner intended to place on record, the learned Tribunal rejected the reference on the premise that petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days as contended by him in his statement of claim by its impugned award dated 2.3.2005. From the perusal of record, it appears that after 8th July, 2003 the affidavit as examination -in -chief submitted by the petitioner at least on three occasions thereafter i.e. on 14.1.2004, 19.5.2004 and 28.7.2004 the Presiding Officer was on leave and on two occasions, the case was adjourned on payment of cost. When the matter came up on 15th September, 2004 since the petitioner could not appear for cross -examination, the opportunity was closed but at the same time, the respondents have also failed to produce their evidence for cross - examination which was also closed as evident from order -sheet dated 29th January, 2005.
(3.) FROM the material on record, this Court is of the opinion the reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner for his cross -examination and at the same time respondents also not cared to produce their witnesses for cross - examination as well.;