HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.646 of 2013
DATE: 21.01.2014
Between:
The Superintendent Engineer Operation of A.P.C.P.D.C.L Habsiguda, Hyderabad, and another …Petitioners And Smt. L.Renuka …Respondent THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.646 of 2013 O R D E R :
This revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.11.2012 in I.D.No.18/2011 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal Cum Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the respondent herein filed I.D. No.18/2011 aggrieved by the alleged action of the revision petitioners in removing him from service by oral order on 01.01.2011. The revision petitioners/respondents in I.D. No.18/2011 filed counter denying the allegations of the alleged illegal termination. During enquiry while the evidence of the respondent herein/workman was in progress a memo was filed by the revision petitioners bringing to the notice of the Tribunal below that the workman did not serve a copy of Ex.W.7 in spite of the order in I.A. No.96/2012 and therefore the I.D. is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties the Tribunal below passed the order under revision overruling the objection raised by the revision petitioners and posting the matter to 03.12.2012 for cross-examination of the workman/W.W.1/respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed.
A perusal of the order under revision shows that the respondent herein/workman filed his affidavit in lieu of the chief examination as W.W.1 on 08.02.2012. However, the matter underwent adjournments from time to time for cross-examination by the management/revision petitioners. Ultimately the matter was posted to 29.06.2012 and even on that date the counsel for the management was absent. Therefore, the Tribunal below proceeded further and Exhibits W.1 to W.7 were marked in evidence on behalf of the workman/respondent herein. Out of the said documents Ex.W.7 is a bank passbook produced by the workman. At that stage the revision petitioners/management filed I.A. No.67/2012 and I.A. No.68/2012 for reopening the evidence and to recall W.W.1. Both the said applications were allowed on 07.09.2012 and thereafter on 08.10.2012 W.W.1 was cross examined in part. Again the matter was adjourned from time to time, and on 08.11.2012 the revision petitioners/management filed I.A.No.96/2012 seeking a direction to the workman to supply a copy of the bank passbook marked as Ex.W.7 so as to enable them to proceed with the cross-examination of W.W.1. Since the workman expressed no objection, I.A. No.96/2012 was ordered on 14.11.2012 and the workman was directed to supply a copy of Ex.W.7 to the management.
However, the workman expressed his inability to supply a copy of Ex.W.7 - bank passbook stating that it is already marked as an exhibit and is in custody of the Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the document in question was already marked in evidence and formed part of the Court record, the Tribunal below by the order under revision held that it is for the management to obtain a certified copy of the said document and proceed with cross-examination of W.W.1.
The said order is questioned in this revision petition contending that the I.D. is liable to be dismissed in lumini for non-compliance with the order in I.A. No.96/2012.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any substance in the contention of the revision petitioners. As rightly held by the Tribunal below the document has already been marked in evidence and therefore the revision petitioners could have obtained a certified copy of the same. The contention that non- furnishing of a copy of the said document disentitles the respondent herein/workman to pursue the I.D. is untenable, and therefore in my considered opinion the revision petition is devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequentially, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
G.ROHINI, J Date: 21.01.2014 MVA
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.646 of 2013 DATE: 21.01.2014
MVA