997 PLP 292 (PLC)

Syed Sajjad for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ikram Zahid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1996. By way of this revision petition, soundness of an order dated14‑3‑1996, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, in the course of proceedings of a petition filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by one Farukh Sagheer, Sub‑Engineer, against the 'Authorities' of WASA/FDA, has been called in question. The respondent before the Labour Court, the revision‑petitioner here, made a request to the Labour Court for re examining a witness, R.W. 1, who was found to have committed errors in making his statement and correction thereof was required, according to the learned counsel for the establishment. Some additional evidence was also intended to be adduced. The learned lower Court has observed that there is no provision in law, empowering a Court to grant such permission. How can a witness be enabled to amend or modify or improve upon his version? If such practice is allowed, sanctity of the Court proceedings will be set at naught and a party desirous of bringing on record certain evidentiary material in accordance with his interests and wishes will get the latitude to make such bids again and again; but such venture obviously would vitiate the whole process, and the other party to the litigation certainly will adversely be affected; and this in turn would entail miscarriage of justice.

2. The respondent before the Labour Court, in this case, had closed the evidence, and this must be taken to be a well‑considered and a material step, which would leave little room for re‑opening of the case. There is a provision for production of additional evidence, in Appellate Court (Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C.), as also for re‑examination of a witness by the trial Court (Order XVIII, rule 17, C.P.C.). These provisions, however, are quite rarely to be availed of, and only with a view to assist the Court in arriving at a correct and just decision and for advancement of ends of fair play and justice. Such exercise has not to be undertaken in routine and in casual fashion. When some new evidentiary material, not in existence already, springs up or is discovered at a later stage, and it has absolute relevance to the matter in controversy or when the Court finds itself handicapped in certain respects, it is empowered to re‑call a witness for re‑examination or to call upon the parties to lead more evidence, on being moved by a party, or even suo Motu.

3. It is, however, to be borne in mind that such an eventuality is more the need or requirement of the Court, than it is the right or entitlement of a party to the litigation,; and the primary object is search for reality, a mission of fact‑finding, and objective dispensation of justice, which is the ultimate end of process of Court and machinery of administration of justice. Well, all such elements appear to be lacking in the instant case; and no cogent reasons were stated in the Court below by the learned counsel for the respondent for grant of the unusual prayer made there. The employer could not be allowed to fill up the lacunae or gaps in his evidence, to make amends for his errors and lapses, and to amend or rectify the testimony, which suffers in certain respects. If the statement of a witness of the establishment was going to prejudice its cause, it had to blame none else but itself, and it could not be helped there. It would of course be open to the learned counsel to furnish an explanation in that regard, in an effort to convince the Court, as regards genuineness or correctness of its cause, and about infirmity or unsoundness of the pleas taken up by the official. Request contained in the application under section 151, C.P.C. had also been made too late in the day, when final arguments in the case before the Labour Court had already been addressed, twice in fact. Copy of the statement of the witness has been tendered, and it is sought to be extensively amended or altered, which incidence would be absolutely odd and unusual indeed.

4. The impugned order has been rendered by the learned Presiding 8 Officer of the Labour Court, on application of mind, and on correct appreciation of the question raised before him; and it does not call for any interference. The revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. A.A./861/Lb.P Revision dismissed.