Judgment P.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. THIS writ petition was moved on behalf of Workmen of the Birnagar Municipality represented by the President of the Birnagar Municipality Employees Association, challenging the order no. 89 dated September 5, 1990. 2. BY the said order, which is annexure E to the petition, the Presiding Officer, 7th Industrial Tribunal had passed a longish order and allowed the petition of the Municipality dated July 24, 1990 on contest and directed that the parties are not allowed to adduce fresh evidence at this stage and directed the parties to come ready for arguments on the evidence and materials already on record, which has been impugned in the instant writ petition, by the Employees Association of the Birnagar Municipality, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Association). Earlier, following dispute was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the aforesaid Tribunal, namely, "Whether dismissal of Shri Bimalendu Paul, Smt. Shibani Dutta, Smt. Renuka Bose and Shri Nemai Biswas is justified ? To what relief, if any, are they entitled ?" 3. THE petitioner Association filed their written statement, contending, inter alia, that the workmen were appointed to their respective posts on January 2, April 1, April 3, 1977 respectively, by the Secretary, on behalf of the Managing Committee of Ula Public Dispensary according to the relevant Rules framed for the purpose by the local Municipal authorities and that the workmen were working continuously since their respective dates of appointment. On May 15, 1991 the Managing Committee of the said Ula Public Dispensary by resolution recommended permanent appointment of Shri Bimalendu Paul, Smt. Shibani Dutta and Smt. Renuka Bose with effect from April 1, 1981 and that the resolution wrongly mentioned that they were appointed temporarily with effect from May 1, 1981. THE Municipality without declaring the said workmen permanent after completion of 240 days of continuous service from 1977 illegally, arbitrarily and malafide notice dated July 28, 1981 of the Chairman, terminated the services of the said workmen on and from July 29, 1981 without any reason whatsoever and that such purported termination was because the said workmen were members of the Congress Union and the Chairman of the Municipality belonged to the C.P.I.(M) and that the concerned workmen prayed for their reinstatement with full back wages. 4. 4. IN support of its case the petitioner relied upon, inter alia, the following documents : (a) Four certificates dated April 10, 1981 issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Nandi, Chairman, Birnagar Municipality in favour of the work- men concerned showing that they are working in the Municipality continuously since 1977. (b) Four letters of appointment dated June 27, 1981 issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Nandi, Chairman, Birnagar Municipality. (c) Resolution dated May 15, 1981 passed by the Managing Committee, Ula Public Dispensary. (d) Resolution dated January 18, 1981 passed by the Managing Committee, Ula Public Dispensary. The Municipality by their written statement denied the allegations made by the petitioner Association and apart from raising certain preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the order of reference, inter alia, contended that the Commissioners of the last Board after they being defeated in the Election on May 31, 1981 appointed four persons on June 10, 1981 without taking prior sanction, concurrence and consent of the Government in the Dispensary and in the Maternity Home and in the Conservancy Department under the Birnagar Municipality and that the said appointments were made with retrospective effect on the basis of a decision dated June 10, 1981 and the concerned workmen were deemed to have joined on June 1, 1981, whereas the Medical Officer in its note has mentioned the date of joining to be June 27, 1981. There was no record as to when the concerned workmen received the letter of appointment and that such appointments Were contrary to the Bengal Municipality Act, then prevailing as also under the Amended Act of 1980 and that then Board did not also comply with the mandatory requirement of sending the Resolution dated June 10, 1981 through the District Magistrate, as enjoined by it. 5. 5. ACCORDING to the Municipality the concerned workmen were never appointed continuously and they were, engaged on "daily basis" as per norms of 'No work no pay' basis and that the so called certificates issued by the Chairman dated April 10, 1981 have not been issued bona fide and validly and further the Managing Committee of the Dispensary has no right to appoint, as the ultimate authority of the Dispensary is the Commissioner and the Managing Committee of the Dispensary has got no authority whatsoever to create post or to appoint, that the affairs of the Dispensary are subject to the direction, concurrence and control of Board of Commissioners of the Municipality and that as none of the workmen worked for a continuous period of 240 days, they have got no right to claim permanency and as such, the discharge simpliciter was necessitated consequent upon the irregular nature of appointment and there is no scope for any malafide act of issuing any charge-sheet. 6. BY separate petition the Municipality submitted following list of documents to be relied upon by it which are as follows :- (i) Note of Medical Officer relating to joining. (ii) Order dated December 3, 1973. (iii) Letter dated January 10, 1974. (iv) Issue Register. (v) Resolution dated July 28, 1981. According to the petitioner Association, as the Municipality did not produce the whole of the contemporaneous records of the period, the petitioner was constrained to file an application supported by an affidavit for production and inspection of the following documents, which were in the custody, control and possession of the Municipality, in the absence of which the workmen would be prejudiced :- 1. Resolution Book of the Managing Committee of Ula Public Dispensary in which resolution dated May 15, 1981 was recorded. 2. Pay Sheets of Birnagar Municipality from 1977 to July, 1981. 3. Attendance Registers of Ula Public Dispensary from 1977 to July, 1981. 4. Pay Sheets of all categories of the employees of the Ula Public Dispensary under Birnagar Municipality from January 1977 to July 1981, 5. Attendance Register of all categories of employees of Ula Public Dispensary under Birnagar Municipality from January 1977 to July 1981. 7. THE Chairman of the Municipality by a counter-affidavit dated August 28, 1985, disputed the justifiability of the application and denied having received most, of the documents from the previous Managing Committee of the Ula Public Dispensary. Attendance Register of all categories of employees of Ula Public Dispensary under Birnagar Municipality from January 1977 to July 1981. 7. THE Chairman of the Municipality by a counter-affidavit dated August 28, 1985, disputed the justifiability of the application and denied having received most, of the documents from the previous Managing Committee of the Ula Public Dispensary. 8. IN the meantime, the parties adduced oral evidence. The petitioner examined its General Secretary and three of the concerned workmen. The Municipality examined only one witness, that is, Sri Nandadulal Roy, the present Chairman of the Birnagar Municipality. On June 13, 1989 the evidence was closed so far as the Municipality was concerned and the case was adjourned till July 25, 1989 for hearing of arguments. By order no. 73 dated June 13, 1989, Sri Nandadulal Roy was cross examined in full and was discharged and evidence of the Municipality was treated to be closed and July 25, 1989 was fixed for hearing of arguments. On July 25, 1989 when both parties were present, the workmen filed a petition praying for adjournment of the hearing in question on the grounds stated in the petition and the said prayer was allowed by Sri R. P. Samajdar. Subsequently, in the presence of the parties on September 2, 1989, a petition was filed on behalf of the parties praying for adjournment of the bearing in question on the grounds stated therein and the said prayer was also allowed by Sri A. K. Chowdhury, Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. 9. ON different dates namely, September 25, 1989, December 26, 1989, prayers for adjournment having been made on behalf of the parties, the same were allowed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, Sri A. K. Chowdhury. 10. LATER on, on December 26, 1989, the petitioner Association having filed a petition praying for issuing summons to Dr. S. K. Biswas (Medical Officer), Ula Public Dispensary, P.O. Birnagar, District Nadia, to give evidence on behalf of the Association. A. K. Chowdhury, learned Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal directed issuance of summons at once to be served entirely at the risk of the Association. By the next order no. 80 dated February 3, 1990 when both parties were present, Presiding Officer was on leave the case was adjourned till March 17, 1990 for evidence by Dr. S. K. Biswas on behalf of the Association. By the next order no. 80 dated February 3, 1990 when both parties were present, Presiding Officer was on leave the case was adjourned till March 17, 1990 for evidence by Dr. S. K. Biswas on behalf of the Association. On March 17, 1990 as the hearing could not take place because of the death of Shri Kanai Lal Bhowmik (Irrigation Minister) and the case was adjourned to April 10, 1990 for evidence of Dr. S. K. Biswas on behalf of the Association. The said order was signed by Sri N. Samaddar. On April 10, 1990 the hearing also could not take place as the Presiding Officer was transferred and the case was adjourned to May 10, 1990. 11. ON May 10, 1990, when the parties were present an application has been filed by the workmen on the ground that due to Municipal Election it would not be possible for the union leader to instruct the learned Advocate. 12. THEREAFTER the case was taken up on June 1, 1990 for taking evidence of Dr. S. K. Biswas but on prayer being made on behalf of the Association the case was adjourned till June 27, 1990 for evidence of Dr. S. K. Biswas, for the Association. Thereafter on July 24, 1990, when both the parties were Present along with Dr. S. K. Biswas, at this stage, an application was filed on behalf of the Municipality praying for recalling of the order no. 79 dated December 26, 1989 and the order no. 80 dated February 3, 1990, on the grounds stated in the said petition. 13. IT was prayed on behalf of the Municipality that on June 13, 1989, when the Municipality's evidence was closed and July 25, 1989 was fixed for argument, the application for issuing of summons was moved on December 26, 1989 of which, no copy was served upon the Municipality and that the order No. 79 dated December 26, 1989 for issuing summons was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The applicant Municipality further submitted that the order directing appearance of Dr. S. K. Biswas to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner Association should be recalled and the matter should be placed for argument. 14. THE Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by the order no. The applicant Municipality further submitted that the order directing appearance of Dr. S. K. Biswas to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner Association should be recalled and the matter should be placed for argument. 14. THE Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by the order no. 89 dated September 5, 1990 allowed the application of the, Municipality dated July 24, 1990 on contest and the order no. 79 (Later) dated December 26, 1989 and directed the subsequent orders to the extent those relate to the examination of witness by the petitioner Association at this stage lose their force and become disfunctional and directed that the parties are not allowed to adduce fresh evidence at this stage and they are directed to come ready for arguments on the evidence and material already on record, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition. Mr. Chunilal Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Association submitted that the impugned order no. 89 dated September 5, 1990, passed by the Presiding Officer of the 7th Industrial Tribunal was bad, void and inoperative as the respondent Municipality withheld material documents particularly the Pay and Attendance Register and witnesses, the respondent Tribunal erred in law in interfering with the order no. 79 dated December 26, 1989, passed by his Predecessor-in-office or issue of summons to the Medical Officer of the Municipality, who could have thrown some light on the issue involved. 15. HE further submitted that the successor Presiding Officer of the Tribunal having arrived at the necessary conclusion that the order cannot be reviewed under Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, should not have recalled the earlier orders, dated December 26, 1989 and the subsequent Orders. 16. FURTHER, according to him, the Tribunal was wrong in view of the provisions of Rule 20E of the said West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 which provides for issuance of summons at any stage of the Proceeding and proceeds Rule 20H which lays down procedure for final hearing. So it was obvious that this power of summoning witness by the Tribunal should be exercised at the proper place, before evidence of the parties are concluded unless it is shown that such examination of a new witness is absolutely necessary for the purpose mentioned above in the ends of Natural justice. 17. So it was obvious that this power of summoning witness by the Tribunal should be exercised at the proper place, before evidence of the parties are concluded unless it is shown that such examination of a new witness is absolutely necessary for the purpose mentioned above in the ends of Natural justice. 17. IT appears that the Tribunal, by the impugned order held that the term "at any stage of the proceedings" occuring in Rule 20E must be construed to mean generally "at any stage of a proceeding" as mentioned in Rule 20H (2) of the said Rules. 18. THEREFORE, according to the Tribunal allowing a party at this stage to adduce evidence is set the hands of a clock back and to allow the proceeding to continue for an indefinite period, a procedure not warranted, under the relevant rules. Further according to Mr. Ganguly, the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that adoption of the said procedure would cause prejudice to the other party, i.e., the Municipality, after the closer of the evidence of the parties and the said procedure could not be adopted. 19. MR. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Municipality has referred to several provisions of Rule 20B, Rule 20C of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. 20. ACCORDING to him, the provisions of Rule 20G of the Industrial Disputes Rules has not been complied with as admittedly no notice of the application moved on December 26, 1989 has been served upon the Municipality. He has also submitted that on the relevant date, i.e., on December 26, 1989 by passing order no. 78, in the presence of both the parties when the case was fixed for hearing of arguments, it was not proper for the Tribunal later, on the same date, i.e., on December 26, 1989 to direct issuing of summons to Dr. S.K. Biswas (Medical Officer) to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner Association, as it was done in the absence of the Municipality. 21. MR. S.K. Biswas (Medical Officer) to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner Association, as it was done in the absence of the Municipality. 21. MR. Sengupta submitted that the order directing issuance of summons dated December 26, 1989 was "a nullity", in the eye of law as the principles of natural justice has been violated and as the principles of natural justice has been violated there was "a prejudice" suffered by the Municipality and in support of this submission he placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors., reported in AIR 1981, SC 136, wherein it has been observed as follows :- "The principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudiced to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It all comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced." 22. IN this context he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 SC 818 at paragraph 87 wherein it has been observed as follows :- "Doing what is right may still result in unfairness if it is done in the wrong way. This view is founded on the cardinal canon that justice must not only be done but also manifestly seem to be done". Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the parties, it has become necessary for this Court to arrive at the conclusion as to whether by recalling the earlier order, after 7 months, the Tribunal had committed error apparent on the face of record, which could be rectified in the instant writ petition. 23. IN my view, although the Tribunal had power to review its own decision in terms of Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, but in the instant case for the purpose of reviewing the order, in question and having arrived at the necessary conclusion, the Tribunal was incompetent to pass the order of recalling which has, however, the effect of review of the order itself. 24. 24. FURTHER in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, as the earlier order dated December 26, 1989 was passed in the presence of "both the parties" and as such, the decisions cited by Mr. Sengupta in the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. (Supra) and Swadeshi Cotton. Mills v. Union of India (Supra) do not have any application in the present case. I am also of the view that at any stage of the proceeding before commencement of the arguments, parties are entitled to adduce evidence. 25. IN terms of Rule 20E of the aforesaid Rules, the parties are entitled to issue summons to a witness at "any stage" of the proceeding, before commencement of the arguments and the respondent Municipality having the right of cross examination of the said witness, it cannot be suggested that there has been "any prejudice", directing issuance of the summons, by the earlier order dated December 26, 1989. 26. FURTHER, in my view the learned Tribunal had complicated the entire matter by delivering a longish order and confused the entire issue including the relevant conclusion that subsequent orders passed after December 26, 1989, those which relate to the examination of the witness by the petitioner Association at the relevant stage lose their force and become disfunctional. In my view, the Tribunal in fact erred in law in arriving at the necessary conclusion and the order passed on September 5, 1990 is accordingly, set aside. 27. TRIBUNAL is directed to proceed to examine the witness on the basis of the earlier orders dated December 26, 1989 and in accordance, with law after giving parties an opportunity to cross examine and in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 28. LET the records of the Tribunal be sent down as expeditiously as possible. On the prayer made by Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta appearing for the Municipality the operation of this judgment and order shall remain stayed for two weeks from this date. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned Advocates on record for the respective parties on their usual undertakings and upon compliance with necessary formalities. Petition allowed.