RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Gurugram in claim reference No.R-146-2009 titled as Union Vs. Mushashi Auto Parts Ltd., whereby the Labour Court has closed the evidence of the claimant/workmen by order, with certain other prayers made in the present petition.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is representing the workmen whose services were terminated by the respondent-Management. Although the respondent-management had been taking time for cross-examining the witnesses of the petitioner, however, suddenly the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by not granting any opportunity to produce the witnesses for their crossexamination, although the said witnesses of the petitioner already stand examined in examination-in-chief. It is further submitted that since the case has become old, therefore, the concerned witnesses have shifted to different locations and it was getting difficult to get the witnesses produced before the Court for cross-examination. Therefore, the default in producing the witnesses for cross-examination was not intentional. Still further, it is submitted that since the dispute involves regarding termination of service of workmen, therefore, if the witnesses of the petitioner are not permitted to be produced for cross-examination, then the case of the workmen would suffer prejudice beyond redemption. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to produce all the witnesses for cross-examination.

3. In view of the nature of order being passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the other side, at this stage.

4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the case file, this Court finds that the petitioner has been granted more than sufficient opportunities for production of the said witnesses for cross-examination by the respondent-Management. Therefore, ex facie there does not appear to be any illegality or impropriety in the action taken by the Court below. However, the zimini orders also show that the respondent-management has also equally contributed to the delay in decision of the case; by taking repeated adjournments, including adjournment for cross-examining the witnesses of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is representing the claim of the workmen, therefore, if the petitioner is not granted opportunity to lead evidence by producing the witnesses for cross-examination, their case would be seriously prejudiced. Hence, it would not be unjustified to grant opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witnesses for crossexamination, however, by putting it under an appropriate financial burden.

5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce all such witnesses for cross-examination, who have already been examined in examination-in-chief, however, subject to payment of ¥10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the Institute for Blind, Sector-26, Chandigarh, within a period of 15 days from today.

6. It is clarified that the trial Court shall grant the opportunity to the petitioner only on production before it the receipt of the costs being deposit by the petitioner; as ordered above.

7. It is further clarified that once the witnesses have been produced by the petitioner, their cross-examination shall continue on day to day basis; till all of them are cross-examined by the respondentmanagement. No prayer for any adjournment shall be entertained by the trial Court on behalf of either of the parties.

8. Disposed of in the above terms.