IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 260 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2008 in WP NO : 4014 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Bandi Vara Prasada Rao S/o. B. Tulasi Rao R/o. 7-1-70, Arunodaya Apartment, 2nd Floor, Flat No.1, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Vice President, Human Resources Bayer (India) Ltd Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandini Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 2 Bayer (India) Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandini Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 3 The Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. bys Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Judgment: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant seeks permission of the Court to delete respondent No.3. Permission granted. The name of respondent No.3 is deleted. Rule nisi. At the request of the learned Advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. The short question, which has been involved in this appeal is with regard to permitting the present appellant before the Labour Court to adduce evidence after closure of evidence from his side has been declared. The question, which was before the Labour Court is with regard to resignation of the appellant. It was the case of the appellant that the alleged resignation given by him was not given at his free will and it was due to undue influence and coercion. After closure of evidence was reported on behalf of the appellant, certain relevant important evidence to show that the resignation was not submitted at his free will was required to be adduced and therefore, an application was submitted to permit him to adduce further evidence. The said application has been rejected. The order of rejection was challenged by filing a petition which has also been rejected. In the circumstances, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. We have heard the learned Advocates. Looking to the facts, in our opinion, it was necessary for the Labour Court to permit the appellant to adduce further evidence, because the Labour Court has to decide whether the resignation was given at the free will of the appellant or whether it was on account of coercion or undue influence. Unless further evidence is permitted to be adducedm, it would not be possible for the appellant to prove his case. Looking to the aforestated facts, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the appellant could have been permitted to adduce further evidence. In this regard, we may also refer to the provisions of Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, which reads as under: “17. Evidence:- A Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may accept and admit, or call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings before it/him and in such manner as it/he may thinks fit.” The aforestated Rule clearly shows that at any stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal, additional evidence can be permitted. It is not in dispute that the award has not been passed. As the award has not been passed, the proceedings are pending and therefore, in our opinion, the appellant should have been permitted to adduce evidence. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, dated 29-1-2008 in I.A.No.314 of 2007 in M.P.No.33 of 2003 and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No. 4014 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. It is directed that the Labour Court shall permit the appellant to adduce further evidence. Anil R. Dave, CJ T.Ch.Surya Rao, 11th March, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies