- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner-department assailing order dated 29/07/2009 passed by the learned Labour Court in pending LCR No. 407/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-employer for setting aside the order dated 20/10/2008 by which the evidence of the petitioner was closed, stood rejected.
(2.) THE respondent-workman filed statement of claim in LCR No. 407/1999 and his evidence in support thereof was recorded finally on 01/09/2006 and the matter was posted for defence evidence of the petitioner-employer for October, 2006. THE case was fixed on several occasions for recording the evidence of the petitioner but it was deferred for one reason or other. Finally, on 19/03/2008 last opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to record their evidence but when no one appeared on the next date, which was 18th July, 2008, further opportunity was afforded on payment of cost of Rs. 400/- and the matter was posted for 20th October, 2008 and when no one appeared to record evidence on behalf of the petitioner, their evidence was closed on 20/10/2008. After closing their evidence, application was filed by the petitioner on 23rd January, 2009 Anx. 1 for recalling and setting aside the order dt. 20/10/2008 on the premise that at one time the concerned clerk Mr. Bhagwan Sahai was promoted on the post of Office Assistant on account of which he was transferred and on one occasion father of the Officer Incharge was ill and died on 31st May, 2008, the reference of which has been made in para No. 3 of the instant petition. Learned Labour Court, after taking into consideration the overall material as also the fact that almost two years time was granted to the petitioner to record their defence evidence from 04/10/2006 till 20/10/2008 but the Officer Incharge or the person concerned failed to get the statement recorded and, as such, there was no option left with the learned Labour Court but to close the evidence and taking note thereof, found no reasonable justification/explanation furnished by the petitioner and rejected their application vide order dated 29/07/2009. What has been urged by counsel for the petitioner is nothing but a reiteration of the submissions made before the learned Labour Court of which reference has been made in Para No. 3 of the instant petition as well. It appears from the record that appropriate Government made reference in 1999 and it took seven years to get the evidence of the claimant recorded and for two years when the petitioner failed to get their statement of witnesses recorded and the Officer Incharge or the persons responsible to whom the matter was entrusted failed to appear, there was no option left with the prescribed authority but to close their evidence and in the instant case ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner- to get the statement recorded on its behalf and as has come on record that the first date fixed for recording the defence evidence was 4th October, 2006 and thereafter on many dates the case was postponed only for recording their evidence and even after the last opportunity was granted on 19th March, 2008, further opportunity was afforded on payment of cost of Rs. 400/- on 18th July, 2008 and finally on 20/10/2008 when no one appeared to record evidence on behalf of petitioner, there was no other option available with the prescribed authority but to close the evidence. What has been urged by counsel for the petitioner in submitting explanation, in the opinion of this Court, is nothing but a lame excuse and the State Government may take action against the persons who are responsible and entrusted with matter but on that count no liberty can be granted by this Court for recalling the order impugned dt. 20/10/2008 as recalling of the same will cause prejudice to the respondent-workman who is contesting his case for last 10 years by now and could not get the matter finally settled only because of the fault on the part of the petitioner. This Court in its equitable jurisdiction does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Labour Court while passing the order impugned dt.29/07/2009 which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate action against the defaulting officers who have failed in discharging their responsibility entrusted to them in accordance with law. No costs.;