DECISION ' There were some disputes pending between the respondents and some of its employees in the Labour Court and the cases had been consolidated. One S.H.A. Jazbi, Divisional Manager (Personnel and Administration) during the cross-examination therein, had given the date of the suspension of the employees as '4-1-1991'.
2. An application was made on 19-11-1991 on behalf of the respondents to the effect that a typographical error had crept on the record, wherein 4-1-1991 was taken down as the date of dismissal as against 22-1-1991 and the same be corrected. The application came to be resisted.
Before this application could be finally disposed of another application was presented on behalf of the respondents to re-call the witness for the purposes of clarification. The learned Presiding Officer in his order, dated 4-1-1992 held that there was no question of correcting the alleged error, because the statement was read out to the parties and no mistake had been pointed out. It was said that once the words `R.O. & A.C.' had been recorded, that would be the end of the matter.
However, he allowed the second application resorting to the provision of Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C.
3. The rule referred to above is meant to meet very special circumstances and there was no warrant to re-call the witness when there was no question of any ambiguity. The said witness is a 'Manager' and is presumed to know what he was saying in a Court. To provide an opportunity to wriggle out from that situation is not called for. I will, therefore, reverse the orders and allow both the Revision Applications, by this order.