1984 PLP 88 (PLC)

Petition No. RYIK‑298 of 1981/(Pb.), decided on 30th September, 1981. ‑‑S. 36 (2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVI, rr. 1 & 2‑Passing of orders in interest of justice‑Presiding Officer of Labour Court on application allowing respondents to summon record‑List of witnesses not presented‑Labour Court giving reasons for accepting application‑Held, in interest of justice any order can be passed by Labour Court‑Held further, r. 1, O. XVI cannot be strictly applied as no issues framed in labour cases. Imtiaz Ahmad for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 15th September, 1981. In these three revisions the order dated 10th August, 1981 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged. The learned Presiding Officer allowed the summoning of the record on the applications of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the list of witnesses is to be presented in the Court within 7 days of the settlement of issues which was not done in the present case and the learned Presiding Officer on the applications of the respondents allowed them to summon the record. Rule 2 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure states that no party can be permitted to call witnesses other than those mentioned in the list, except with the permission of the Court and after showing good cause for the omission of those witnesses in the list. It is thus clear from rule 2 of Order XVI that the Court has the power to allow summoning of a witness, whose name is not mentioned in the list. In the present case, as there was no list it would mean that the witnesses to be called with the record was not mentioned in the list. The Court has given reason also and, therefore, it cannot be said that without giving any reason the applications were accepted. In the interest of justice any order can be passed by the Court. It has not been said by the learned counsel that the document sumi:1oned is not relevant to the case. Since the document is relevant, if it had not been summoned, it would have prejudiced the case of the respondents. So far as the question of non‑production of list of witnesses is concerned, since no issues are framed in labour cases, rule 1 of Order XVI cannot be strictly applied I This is noteworthy that under section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 same powers have been given to the Labour Courts which are vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. When a Civil Court can in suitable cases allow the summoning of a witness under rule 2 of Order XVI whose name does not appear in the list of witnesses, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that such powers cannot be exercised by the Labour Courts. It does not appear that the applications for summoning the record through a witness were given at a very late stage of the case, nor this is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Of course, if merely, to delay the decision of the case and hamper justice an applica tion for summoning the evidence at a late stage of the case is made, the same should not be allowed. In these circumstances, 1 am not inclined to exercise my revisional jurisdiction given under section 38 (3‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. All the three revision petitions are dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Revision petition dismissed.