IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4014 of 2008 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. ..... PETITIONER 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) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 29-1-2008 in IA No. 314 of 2007 in MP No. 33/2003 on the file of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the same and direct the 3rd Respondent court to give opportunity to the petitioner to let evidence and pass such relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Order: In this Writ Petition, petitioner questions the order dated 29-01-2008 passed by the third respondent-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, in I.A.No.314 of 2007 in M.P.No.33 of 2003. The petitioner filed M.P.No.33 of 2003 claiming that he is entitled for certain amounts under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and that he was made to resign under the threat of termination by the first respondent. Petitioner’s side evidence was closed on 15-11-2007, on which date, it was reported by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was no further evidence. Even for the respondent’s evidence, a Commissioner was appointed and he filed a report on 28-12-2007. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.314 of 2007 seeking to reopen the matter to adduce further evidence of one M.Jayasurya, on the ground that his evidence was crucial as he was present at the time when the petitioner was being forced to resign from his earlier job, but however, the third respondent-Labour Court, rejected the same vide order dated 29-01-2008. Hence, the present Writ Petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Though M.P.No.33 of 2003 was numbered in the year 2003, at no point of time, the petitioner made any attempt to examine said Jayasurya and there is no such averment made in the main application also. Having considered all aspects of the matter, the Labour Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence, after completion of the respondent side evidence, as it was intended only to fill up the lacunae in his case. The impugned order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.Subhash Reddy, J) 26th February, 2008 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o lur ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 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. 4. 2CCs to the Govt.Pleader for Labour. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}