Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Netrapal Singh vs . M/S. In Style Exports Pvt. Ltd. on 30 October, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR­II, PRESIDING OFFICER, 
   LABOUR COURT NO. IX, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI 


LCA 45/12 (old), 25/14 (new)

Netrapal Singh Vs. M/s. In Style Exports Pvt. Ltd.

30.10.2014

ORDER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE WORKMAN FOR SUMMONING THE WITNESES AS FRESH EVIDENCE IN ABOVE CASE Ld. AR for workman has pressed the present application on the ground that in the above case the evidence from the side of workman has been closed and fresh evidence is required to prove the contention and claim of workman. Ld.AR for workman has further stated that Sh. Sashi Bhushan, Bonus Officer, Office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner (South), A­Wing, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, Madangir, New Delhi­62 and concern Officer, Sub­Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Authority, C­149, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi­20 with ESIC record of the workman insurance no. 11­7034688 and employer code no.11­25572 may be summoned to give witness in the court.

Arguments heard. During the course of arguments AR for workman submitted that workman is at liberty to move any application before publication of award and further submitted that this court is a court of enquiry and the workman can file any application at any stage as per Industrial Dispute Act.

LCA 45/12 (old), 25/14 (new) 1/2 Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that the workman/WW­1 had examined himself on 02.09.14 and thereafter Sh. Ranjeet Singh, AR for workman, had sought permission to close WE which was granted and statement of AR for workman was recorded to that effect and in view of statement of AR for workman WE was closed.

I have perused the application of the workman. On perusal of application of the workman it is revealed that AR for workman has filed the present application only for summoning the witnesses as fresh evidence in above case and not for re­opening of WE. Even no prayer with respect to re­opening of WE has been made in the application nor application is supported with any affidavit nor any date on which WE was closed has been mentioned. It appears that the present application has been drafted in such a way that it does not inspire any confidence and application appears to be vague and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. The court is also of the opinion that since evidence of the workman was closed vide statement of AR for workman dated 02.09.2014, evidence of the workman cannot be re­opened now. No other reasonable ground has been explained to allow the present application. In these circumstances, the present application of the workman is hereby dismissed.

Application disposed off accordingly. 

PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT     (RAMESH KUMAR­II)          
ON  30.10.2014                                      PRESIDING OFFICER:
                                                      LABOUR COURT­IX/
                                  EAST DISST./KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
                                                                 DELHI

LCA 45/12 (old), 25/14 (new)                                                                  2/2