IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4574 of 2008 Dashrath Sahni son of Shri Jiblal Sahni ,Resident of village-Ilamat,P.O. AND p.s.-Hayaghat,District-Darbhanga Petitioner Versus 1The State Of Bihar. through the Commissioner-cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Darbhanga. 4. Thhe Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur. Respondents. ----------- 2 29.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The prayer is made for quashing order dated 14.2.2007 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur passed under Reference case no. 1/2001 by which the prayer made by the workman petitioner to recall him as workman witness to prove certain documents has been rejected. From perusal of the petition, as contained in Anexure-8 filed on 18.12.2002, it appears that such prayer was not a simple prayer to recall the petitioner for proving the documents rather the prayer was that certain documents be called for from the management and be produced in the Court. The stage at which the prayer has been made to call for the documents, in my firm opinion, was not only highly belated, but the intention was also that somehow or the other the 2 matter is lingered for the reasons best known to the petitioner himself. The stage had passed for calling for the documents. Even beyond that, at the first instance when the petitioner was examined, he raised no such plea about calling for any document to be exhibited. Subsequently, the petition for recall of the workman petitioner was filed, not only for recall of the witnesses, but also for calling upon the management to produce 26 documents. The above prayer made by the petitioner workman at the belated stage is totally unreasonable and cannot be justified in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a layman being a worker was not aware of law, this Court does not find merit in such argument in as much as he had once deposed earlier when he could have raised the plea of production of those documents or at least made a prayer or statement in his deposition that those documents be made available as they are in the custody of the management, and it could be called for. That being the position this Court is satisfied that the order passed on the petition dated 18.12.2002 in which 26 documents were called for is in accordance with law and 3 needs no interference. For the reasons, stated above this Court finds no merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed. Sudha ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. )