25.09.2026 Item no. 05 Court no. 30 g.b. 266012 WPA 26919 of 2026 M. K. Enterprise Vs. Sk. Mursedul Haque & Ors. Mr. S. K. Singh Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey Mr. S. R. Singh …..For the Petitioner Mr. Ranjay De, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. Banerjee Mr. A. A. Bose …… For the Respondent No.2 Mr. Uddipan Banerjee Mr. Subhrakanti Samanta …..For the Private Respondent 1. Affidavit of service filed be taken on record. 2. On being served the private respondent is being represented. 3. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the learned Labour Court, West Bengal thereby rejecting the application for issuance of summons and foreclosing of evidence of the petitioner in Case No. 19 of 2023 under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972. 4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Second Labour Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to adduce further witness and has closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite 2 party/petitioner herein. The Court has passed the following order: “That the petition of the O.P No.1 to issue summons upon Uttam Halder is rejected on contest. Furthermore, the O.P No.1 has not complied the order no. 29 dated 05.08.2026 of this court and the O.P No.I has not sought any adjournment for adducing further evidence so this court is compelled to close the evidence of O.P No. 1, accordingly, the evidence of OP No.1 stands foreclosed. Let this matter be fixed for hearing of petition of OP no, I to send the document for examination by Handwriting expert, written objection and Evidence of OP No.2. Fix 21.09.2026 for hearing of petition dated 02.08.26. WD and Evidence of OP No.2.” 5. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that the Court has recorded the necessity of issuing summons upon the witness Uttam Halder as follows: “It is found from the petition of the O.P No.1 that Uttam Halder is employee of OP No.l and OP no. I has contended that he is unable to bring Uttam Halder as witness in this matter but no order of Management has produced to show that Management gave any written order to Uttam 3 Halder to come to this court as witness whereas Uttam Halder is still in the employment of O.P No.1. So, if this court issue summons to Uttam Halder then it will be the misuse of the process of the court and drag this proceeding. Therefore, this court is of the considered view not to allow the petition of the O.P No.1.” 6. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that it is the delay which has played in the mind of the Court while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 7. Considering the said fact and the interest of justice one last opportunity is being granted to the petitioner on setting aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the learned Labour Court, West Bengal thereby rejecting the application for issuance of summons and foreclosing of evidence of the petitioner in Case No. 19 of 2023 under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972 with the direction that the Labour Court will permit the petitioner to issue summons upon Uttam Halder who shall be adduced as a witness in accordance with law by due process. 8. It is further made clear that any further witnesses if the opposite party/petitioner herein wishes to adduce, he shall be at liberty to do so but the 4 same shall be done without any delay. If there is any further delay in the conduct of the petitioner herein who is the opposite party before the Court, the Learned Labour Court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 9. The writ application stands disposed of. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)