Ram Baral Pandey v. M/S Thbrmoking

1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court. The petitioner has relied upon the attendance noting made by the Assistant PL Coinmissioner which has been filed as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition at pages 76 to-79. This document was not filed before the Labour Court and 2016:DHC:8848 i3> therefore,the petitioner filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence to prove this document. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 for permission to lead additional evidence was allowed vide order dated 19"^ November,2014 by taking the document on record.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the genuineness of Annexure P-4 filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has obtained Annexure P-4 from the office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner through RTF Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to lead additional evidence to prove the document before the Labour Court.

4. This Court is satisfied that the additional evidence is necessary to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned awards are set aside and the matters be remanded back to the Labour Court for recording of additional evidence by the petitioner with respect to Annexure P-4. The Labour Court shall thereafter afford an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Labour Court shall thereafter pass a fresh award after hearing both the parties.

5. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 9^^^ December, 2016 when the Labour Court shall fix the cases for recording of the additional evidence by the petitioner.

6. The record ofthe Labour Court be returned back forthwith.

7. Copy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for both the parties under the signature ofthe Court Master. J.R. MIDHA,J. NOVEMBER 29,2016 dk