Inder Singh v. The Cmd Of Dtc & ANR

$~A-33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 255/2016 and CM No. 9458/2016 (stay) INDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ram Sewak versus THE CMD OF DTC & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Manisha Tyagi, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 24.08.2016 1.

By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the labour court. By the said order, the labour court noted that the matter is fixed for admission/denial of documents but ARW has put only one document. The order also notes that the document has been admitted to have been issued by the Management but it is stated to contain a false statement. The document was marked as Ex.M-1 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made two submissions to impugn the said order. He firstly submits that there were three documents filed by the workman out of which two have clearly been admitted and only on one document, a wrong endorsement was made by the Management. Hence, he submits that all the three documents are liable to be exhibited. Second submission is that the documents are filed by the workman and have to be exhibited as Ex.WW1/M1 to M3 and not EX.M-1. CM(M) 255/2016

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that there are three documents which have been admitted. She, however, submits that one of the documents which is a statement of accounts which was marked as M1 it has been clearly noted that the document has been issued by DTC but it bears a wrong statement.

4.

The submission of the petitioner to the extent that the other two documents which have been admitted are not exhibited is in order. The labour court may exhibit the said documents.

5.

As far as the nomenclature affixed on the document marked as Ex.M1, the labour court may look into the same and mark the same as per procedure followed. If the document was filed by the workman, an appropriate exhibit mark may be placed on the same as per law. 6.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. JAYANT NATH, J AUGUST 24, 2016 rb CM(M) 255/2016