S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 19.3.2014 in Reference Case No. 16 of 2006 whereby, the application dated 30.10.2013 seeking recall and re -examination of witness namely, Arvind Kumar Srivastava has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. A counter -affidavit dated 15.7.2015 has been filed by the respondents and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims that he was engaged as Casual Labour on 12.9.1986 and thereafter, he was engaged intermittently in different Group -D post as casual labour. He continued to work till 14.3.1987 and again from 16.9.1992 to 14.9.1993. The petitioner has further asserted that on the orders of the Head Post Office, he was again engaged from 20.6.2002 to 4.8.2003 however, since, 5.8.2003 he was stopped from attending duty. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised which, on failure of the conciliation between the parties, was referred to the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication vide order dated 22.5.2006 in Reference Case No. 16 of 2006. After the parties closed their evidence, application dated 30.10.2013 was filed on behalf of the workman for his re -examination. The said application has been dismissed on 19.3.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to lack of knowledge letters dated 14.7.1988 and 18.9.2003 as well as original postal registration slip could not be brought on record and for bringing those documents on record the petitioner filed application seeking recall of the witness. Referring to various provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the main object behind the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to ensure industrial peace and harmony amongst the workman and the management. The Industrial Tribunal is not strictly guided by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act though, in certain matters the procedure prescribed under the Code is followed by the Tribunal.;