' The petitioner informs under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the orders, dated 10th March, 1984 and 24th July, 1984 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore are without jurisdictian, illegal and improper.
2. After the parties had closed their evidence the petitioner moved on 21st January, 1984 an application for additional evidence. The evidence sought to be produced was copy of two letters from the record of the Registrar and for the production of the same the official concerned was requested to be summoned. Copy of the statement of the respondent recorded by the Court in some other case was also sought to be produced and for the production of the same record keeper of the Court was requested to be summoned. The application was allowed but the required evidence was not got summoned for 10th March, 1984 with the result that the Court closed the case of both the parties and adjourned the case to 23rd April, 1984 for arguments on the main case.
Another application was given for summoning the witnesses but the learned lower Court disallowed it.
3. It has been argued that the Court had to summon the witness for 10th March, 1984 so the case could not be closed. The argument has no force. The petitioner did not deposit the diet money without which the witnesses could not be summoned. Usually one day's pay and travelling charges are deposited. The Court is not expected to know what is the pay of a Government servant sought to be summoned a witnesses. So the party has to inform the Court about it and to get the order for the deposit to the same. The other thing is that if merely copies were to be produced and were admissible in evidence without calling the original, then direction should have been obtained from the Court to the Registrar to supply the copies and an application for supply of copy of evidence should have been made to Court No, 2 instead of summoning the employees of the Registrar and the Court. So the learned lower Court was justified in closing the case when on 10th March, 1984 additional evidence was not present. When once the Court had closed the case no second application for additional evidence could be made. So, the impugned order is not suffering from any legal infirmity for which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be considered necessary.
4. As a result, the revision is dismissed in limine.