IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1925 of 2011 M/s Jai Ganesh Engineering Industries and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur and two others … Respondents. Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. C.K.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date September 14, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 9600 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-8-2011 passed by Employees State Insurance Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar(for short the ESI Court) in Misc. Civil Case No. 186 of 2003, M/s Jai Ganesh Engineering Industries and others Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and others (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). By the order dated 11-8-2011 the ESI Court has closed the opportunity of evidence to the plaintiff-petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of as on today itself without counter version of the respondents at the admission stage. According to the petitioners, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 76/77 of the Act before the ESI court seeking declaration that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the applicant firm, which has been registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 186 of 2003. On 11-8-2011, the plaintiff-petitioners filed an 2 application for adjournment of the case praying that the plaintiffs may be granted one day’s time. The application for adjournment (paper no. 46-C) has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce its evidence despite several opportunities given to the plaintiffs and that the petitioners are not interested to prosecute their case and the plaintiffs are wasting the time of the Court, therefore, there is no justification to allow the application. The case was ordered to be fixed on 24-8-2011 for defendants’ evidence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the case is pending since the year 2003 and the petitioners, who are plaintiffs themselves are lingering on the proceedings of the case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has contended that if the opportunity of the plaintiffs is closed, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and that the plaintiffs may be given last opportunity to lead its evidence in the case before the ESI Court. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material placed before this Court, it would be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice that the case is decided on merits by the ESI court by giving the plaintiff-petitioners last opportunity to adduce its evidence before the ESI Court. Accordingly, the application paper no. 46-C moved by the plaintiffs before the ESI court deserves to be allowed subject to payment of cost. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The application for adjournment (paper no. 46-C) moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners, before the ESI court is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) to defendants. The cost of Rs. 1000/- 3 (Rs. one thousand) shall be deposited within a period of one week with the ESI Court by the petitioners and the plaintiff-petitioners shall remain present in the Court on 26-9-2011 to lead its evidence in the matter. On payment/deposit of the cost, the order dated 11-8- 2011 passed by the ESI court shall stand recalled. The plaintiffs shall not seek any adjournment on their behalf on the date fixed i.e. 26-9-2011. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP