DECISION ' This is a suo motu revision under section 38 (3-a), I. R. O. 1969, against an order, dated 12th May, 1983, passed by Labour Court No, 1, whereby the learned Court has rejected an application filed by the applicant workman for a permission to lead an additional evidence in support of the plea that the respondent had accepted the amount of Rs, 45,688.65 in full and final settlement of his claim.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that a petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0. 1969 is pending before the learned Court, wherein the evidence of the respondent workman has been recorded and closed, whereas the evidence of the Management is proceeding when it has been refused by the Court to lead further evidence on the above-mentioned issue as to whether the respondent workman accepted the above-mentioned amount in full and final settlement of his claim. The contention raised on behalf of the management is that in a reply to the grievance notice the plea to that effect was raised in the terms that the respondent workman had received his legal dues and since the plea was not contradicted in the petition under section 25-A, the Management was not legally obliged to raise the same plea in the reply statement to the petition before the Court. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent workman that it is claimed in the petition that he was entitled to the back benefits and, therefore, since Management has remained silent on the issue, they are not entitled to lead evidence in support of it.
3. After going through the material available on the record and after hearing the learned Advocate of the parties, what I find is, that the issue to the effect as to whether the respondent workman has received the above-mentioned amount as his legal dues in satisfaction of full and final settlement, really and substantially arises out of the facts and circumstances of the present case for its correct and just decision. What I further find that there is a documentary evidence available in support of such an issue which cannot be correctly and justly decided without giving proper consideration to such an evidence. It is apparent on the material available on the record that no proper thought has been given to such an aspect of the case in the proceedings which are at its closing stage. There is no dispute that the issue to the above effect substantially arises out of the pleadings, though it has not been properly raised by the parties. What is further clear that the issue in question is essential for the correct and just decision of the case and in such a situation the Court is bound to take it into consideration even at this stage, provided adequate opportunity is given to both the parties to support or oppose the pleas arising out of the issue. In the instant case, it is clear that neither an opportunity was given to the respondent workman in that respect nor it has been allowed to the Management.
4. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order, dated 12th May, 1983 and direct that both the parties be allowed an opportunity to lead evidence on the above-mentioned issue to the effect as to whether the respondent workman did receive his legal dues as alleged by the Management. The suo motu revision is allowed accordingly.