Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.C.S.D. (Phool Chand Sanathan Dharm) ... vs Satbir Singh And Another on 24 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)IILLJ669P&H
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. The petitioner is the employer of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 madea demand challenging his termination from service. In the reference made to the Labour Court, the Labour Court upheld the claim of respondent No. 1 and ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with 70 per cent back wages. This writ petition has been filed by the employer, challenging the award of the Labour Court.
2. When the matter was argued, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his arguments only qua the award of 70 per cent back wages. According to him, respondent No. 1 was gainfully employed and was running a Kiryana shop and that the Labour Court has erred in not considering this contention of the petitioner. He has also drawn our attention to the statement of the witness of the petitioner Ashok Mittal, copy of which is at Annexure P/5. In the examination-in-chief, the witness has stated that respondent No. 1 is running a Kiryana (General) store in his village. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that this assertion in examination-in-chief by witness of the petitioner has not been challenged in the cross-examination and, therefore, the assertion has gone unchallenged and should have been accepted. However, after reading the cross-examination, we cannot agree with this statement. The last three questions answered by the witness had gone to show that he had challenged the said assertion made by the petitioner. The answer to this question is quoted below :
".....I am residing at house and never visited the plaintiff's village. It was disclosed to me by the plaintiff himself that he is running a general store at village Bhagana. This is correct that I have not my self seen the plaintiff s shop."
This goes to show that questions have been asked to the witness to take out from him that he was not having personal knowledge regarding respondent No. 1 running a Kiryana shop.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Harbans Lal v. Bhim Singh, reported as 1977 Current Law Journal (Civil) 259. It has been held therein by the learned Single Judge of this Court that when there is no cross-examination of witness on a particular point of his examination-in- chief, it shows that the other party has accepted that point. We do not express any opinion on the observations made by the leaned Singly Judge. However, even if the proposition is to be accepted, from the facts that emerge in this case from the deposition and cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, we find that the assertion made by the petitioner has been sufficiently challenged by respondent Nq. 1 in the cross-examination. Moreover, the Labour Court restricted the back wages to 70 per cent.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
4. Petition dismissed.