1991 PLP 42 (PLC)

Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Arif and others P L D 1986 Azad J&K 128 ref. Malik Muhammad Aslam for petitioner. This constitutional petition has been moved against the order of the learned Judge, Punjab Labour Court No.VIII, Bahawalpur, dated 4-11-1989 and that of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 11-12-1989, who had dismissed the application of the petitioner for the production of additional evidence.

2. The brief facts leading to this constitutional petition are that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.3, who was ousted from service. He appears to have filed a grievance petition, which was accepted with back benefits. The matter regarding the back benefits was re-agitated by the petitioner, which was contested by respondent No.3. When the final arguments were concluded and the case was fixed for final order, the petitioner filed a petition for the admission of the certificate of the Income Tax Officer as additional evidence. It was intended for the purpose that the petitioner was not an owner of Mehboob Medical Store and had not worked there. The learned Labour Court and the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed that petition on the ground that it was a belated one and the lacuna in the evidence could not be filled in by producing the impugned certificate.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to section 150 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, in order to show that the Income Tax Officer could not be produced and he could claim privilege regarding certain documents and, therefore, his certificate was obtained which is a public document and it should have been admitted into evidence. Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Arif and others (P L D 1986 Azad J & K 128) has been cited in which it was held that the public document should be admitted into evidence. In this precedent, it has not been mooted whether such document could be produced in-evidence at the belated stage when the arguments had been heard in the case, so it does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

4. The principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the admission of additional evidence are to be adhered to. The impugned certificate of the Income Tax Officer could have been obtained earlier when the parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence No plausible explanation has been brought forward as to why it was not exhibited earlier. Even under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, those documents are admissible in evidence, which were discovered at a late stage or had been lost and found subsequently or the Court needed them for the pronouncement of the judgment. In this case, the questioned document could have been produced at the proper stage and the lacuna could not be filled in by the production of the certificate after the conclusion of arguments. The learned Labour Court did not need it for the pronouncement of the order and, in this manner, both the learned lower Courts were competent to dismiss the application of the petitioner for the production of the additional evidence. They have not committed any illegality or irregularity in the pronouncement of the impugned orders. I therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same in limine.

5. Since the writ petition has been dismissed in limine, this petition has become infructuous and stands disposed of. M.Y.H./Q-31/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.