IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No.734 of 2025 ----- Binod Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Village-Chouriya, P.O.-Sosandi, P.S. Harnout, District-Nalanda (Bihar) at present resident of Qr. No. S.F.- 03/30, Baradwari Supervisor Flat, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. ........... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. M/s. Tata Steel Limited through its Managing Director, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 3. Managing Director, Tata Steel Limited, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I For the Res. Nos.2&3: Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate ----- Order No.06 Date: 17.03.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in I.D. Case No.18 of 2016, whereby the application dated 16th July, 2024 filed by the petitioner for calling the complainant, namely, P.C. Sarkar for examination as management-witness was disposed of observing that the same was not maintainable on the ground that record was running for hearing on the point of fairness of domestic enquiry since 14th February, 2020, after closing the petitioner’s evidence on 8th December, 2019 as well as the application dated 19th July, 2024 filed by the petitioner to pass 2 W.P.(L) No.734 of 2025 order on the validity of power given to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 was disposed of observing that it would be appropriate to decide the said issue after recording of evidence. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 13th September, 2024, it appears that the petitioner’s application for calling one P.C. Sarkar as a witness was rejected on the ground that record was running for hearing on the point of fairness of domestic inquiry since 14th February, 2020, after closure of the petitioner’s evidence on 8th December, 2019. However, the petitioner had filed application dated 16th July, 2024 to call P.C. Sarkar for examination, who is said to have complained against the petitioner that he had taken illegal gratification from him. 4. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13th September, 2024 particularly keeping in view that the said applications were filed by the petitioner quite belatedly as his evidence on the point of fairness of domestic inquiry was already concluded on 8th December, 2019. Moreover the argument on the said issue was continuing since 14th February, 2020. Filing of the said applications after more than four years from the date of closure of the petitioner’s evidence can only be said to be an attempt on his part to stall the said proceeding. 5. Under the said circumstance, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by the 3 W.P.(L) No.734 of 2025 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in I.D. Case No.18 of 2016. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/