IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35578 of 2025 The Boudh Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Boudh …. Petitioner Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Dhaneswar Meher and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dash, Advocate (for Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, ASC (For Opposite Party No.2) W.P.(C) No.26944 of 2025 Dhaneswar Meher …. Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dash, Advocate -versus- The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, ASC (For Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 13.01.2026 02. 1. Both the matters are taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur is under challenge in both the writ petitions, whereby the prayer of the Workman to recall W.W. No.1 for re-examination and prayer of the Management to recall the said witness for further cross-examination were rejected. 3. W.P.(C) No.35578 of 2025 has been filed by the Management and W.P.(C) No.26944 of 2025 has been filed by the Workman, assailing the self-same order. Hence, both the writ petitions are heard analogously. For the sake of convenience in discussion, the parties are described as per their status before the Labour Court, Sambalpur. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the Management submits that when the case was posted for argument, the Management felt that some relevant questions could not be put to W.W.No.1 in his cross-examination. Hence, an application was filed to recall W.W. No.1 for further cross- examination. 5. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Workman submits that the Workman also filed an application to recall W.W. No.1 for re-examination to exhibit certain relevant documents as well as to explain the same in re-examination. 6. Both the petitions were rejected by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 04.09.2025. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the parties that for just adjudication of a reference, which relates to the termination of the Workman, the W.W. No.1 should have been recalled for re-examination by exhibiting certain documents and for further cross-examination. It is also submitted by Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Workman that his application to call for the original records from the Management relating to termination of the Workman was allowed by learned Presiding Officer in the same order. Thus, he should have allowed the prayer for re-examination of W.W. No.1 to prove the same. 7. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court rejected both the petitions on the ground that the re-examination and further cross-examination of W.W. No.1 is not necessary because re-examination is only required to explain anything, which is elicited in the cross-examination. Since the Workman had prayed for re- examination to exhibit certain documents and to further explain certain things, the same is contrary to provisions of law. Such observation is not sustainable in the eye of law, as learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court is under legal obligation to answer the reference effectively and judiciously. All opportunities should be given to the parties to adduce evidence and put forth their case for just adjudication of the reference. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.06 of 2023 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside so far it relates to recall of W.W. No.1 is concerned. 9. The prayer made by the Management in W.P.(C) No.35578 of 2025 relating to recast the issues is premature, as it is submitted at the Bar that an application with the self- same prayer is pending before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur for adjudication. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 11. Interim order dated 24.09.2025 passed in I.A. No.16941 of 2025 (Arising out of W.P.(C) No.26944 of 2025) stands vacated. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Prasant Designation: Secretary Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.