Civil No. 2402 of 1993 has been filed with 1 a payer that Reference No. 18 of 1988 pending the Labour Court Assam Guwahati be transferred to some other Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in the State of Assam. 2. The brief facts are as follows : That an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 4 before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer at Silchar. The conciliation having failed the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the: Govt. of Assam and the Govt. of Assam vide notification dated 19.8.88 referred the following issues to the Labour Court of Assam, at Guwahati. In exercise of the power under section, 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issues are as follows: Issues; (a) Whether the management of M/S Glindia Ltd. are justified in suspending Shri Ranjit Acharya, Medical representative w.e.f. 8.9.87 for his trade union activities actuated with the motive and subsequent dismissal from service wef 25.2.88 ? (b) If not, is the said workman entitled to reinstatement with full back wages with other benefits or any Qther relief in liew thereof ? 3. Accordingly, a case was registered in the Labour Court of Assam at Guwahati as Reference Case No. 18 of 1988. On the prayer of the petitioner company, the Labour Court, Assam at Guwahati framed the preliminary issues, for adjudication which are as follows : (1) Whether the learned Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as pleaded in the management's written statement ? (2) Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is fair and proper ? 4. With regard to the aforesaid two preliminary issues, the petitioner company examined twp witnesses and Shri Ranjit Acharya examined himself in support of his ease. By order dated 1.3.93, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issues against the management, and in favour of the Union. Being aggrieved by the said order, the management moved a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which is pending as Civil Rule No.1553 of 1993. This Court rejected the prayer for stay and asked the Labour Court to complete the proceeding within a period of 6 months. The petitioner submits that in between 4 2.93 and the date of passing the order on 1.3.93, the Labour Court did not give opportunity to the petitioner to take proper steps in the proceeding. This Court rejected the prayer for stay and asked the Labour Court to complete the proceeding within a period of 6 months. The petitioner submits that in between 4 2.93 and the date of passing the order on 1.3.93, the Labour Court did not give opportunity to the petitioner to take proper steps in the proceeding. Their allegations are as follows : (i) On 4.2.93 the cross-examination was completed and the Labour Court asked the parties to argue the matter on that very day itself with­out the certified copy. Application was filed on behalf of the manage­ment for grant of time but the same was rejected. (ii) Subsequently, on 8.2.93 an application was filed to fix the case on 15.2.93 but the same was also rejected. (iii) By Annexure III a prayer was made to correct the answer 'given by Shri R. Acharya and as such a prayer was made that the Court may be pleased to correct the answer or in the alternative may be pleased to recall the witnesess to put same questions again. That was also turned down and thereafter as stated earlier, the order was passed on 1.3.93. (iv) Grievances have been made that on different dates i.e. 21.12.92, 14.5.93 and 22.6.93, the costs were awarded against the management @ Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. (v) Next grievance is that witnesses were examined on 16.8.93,17.8.93 and 18.8.93 and the statements of these witnesses were not recorded properly and as such applications were filed 18.8.93 which is annexed as Annexure VII. This is a verified application verified by one Madhudhan Dutta and the prayer made therein is that the statement as mentioned in their applications be recorded as the statement of Shri MM Kapoor or in the alternative recall the witnesses of the management for further examination. Alongwith that application an Affidavit stated to be by MM Kapoor was annexed. 5. Annexure VIII is another application by the management regarding the deposition of AK Bhusari, MW 7 wherein it was stated that certain statements of Shri Bhusari were not properly recorded. Alongwith that an affidavit of Bhusari was enclosed. 6. Annexure IX is a letter written by Shri T. Dayal, Senior Adovcate to one Ms. Baruah (Advocate of the management). That letter is dated 19.8.93 wherein the Advocate has made certain allegations against the Presiding Officer. Alongwith that an affidavit of Bhusari was enclosed. 6. Annexure IX is a letter written by Shri T. Dayal, Senior Adovcate to one Ms. Baruah (Advocate of the management). That letter is dated 19.8.93 wherein the Advocate has made certain allegations against the Presiding Officer. A notice of motion was issued on this application on 26.8.83 and the Court passed the following order : “Heard also Mr. Das Gupta and according to him, the matter II pending since 1988 and therefore, it needs immediate disposal as directed by this Court earlier, but as serious allegations have been made against a judicial officer no order can be passed without getting a report from him. lathe meantime, respondent No. 4 may file counter affidavit. It is stated that next date for hearing of the case has been fixed by the learned Labour Court in the last week of September. If the matter is not disposed of before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may file a petition before the Labour Court praying for time which shall be allowed by the Labour Court. Let the item be listed for admission as soon as report is received from the respondent No. 3." 7. Accordingly, a report has been submitted by the Presiding Officer. The report dated 18th Deemder, 1993 is quoted below : "I have the honour to request you to place Annexures No.II (b),VII, XI and XIII of Civil Rule No. 3151 of 1993 and the copies of my orders dated 4.2.93 and 18.8.93 filed herewith before the Hon'ble High Court, which will form the part of my report as quoted in the subject above, for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court and necessary action. The above Annexures filed by the petitioner in the Civil Rule are copies of some of the orders of this Court passed in Ref. Case No. 18 of 1988 which will speak for themselves. These Annexures and the copies of my orders dated 4.2.93 and 18.8.93 will show the deliberate intention of the management to drag and defer the case. The above Annexures filed by the petitioner in the Civil Rule are copies of some of the orders of this Court passed in Ref. Case No. 18 of 1988 which will speak for themselves. These Annexures and the copies of my orders dated 4.2.93 and 18.8.93 will show the deliberate intention of the management to drag and defer the case. Many of the facts of the management of the said Civil Rule were twisted and distorted by the management only to evade the responsibility to co-operate this Court for disposal of the said reference early, even as directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 16.6.93 in Civil Rule No. 1553 of 1993 to dispose of the reference within six months. My order dated 4.2.93 will itself belie the plea of the petitioner of the said Civil Rule that the said Annexures and the copy of this order and the copy of order dated 18.8.93 will clearly show the deliberate intention of the management to distort and twist the facts of the Civil Rule. These are some of the instances for deliberate intention of the management to drag and defer the case disallowing this Court to dispose of the reference within six months as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No. 1553 of 1993. A piece of paper marked X in evidence of management's witness No.2 Dr. UK Hazarika, admittedly had its original without which it was not legally acceptable to be exhibited and refusal to exhibit it is just legal. Annexure No. VII of the Civil Rule which is a copy of order dated 22.6.93 of this Court, itself will show that the prayer of the management for adjournment was granted and its witnesses were summoned. This Court never ill-treated anybody nor misbehaved with Mr. Dayal, as alleged. Without further details it is hoped that those Annexures and copies of orders will belie the twisted and distorted pleas as adopted in the Civil Rule and also the contemptuous allegations levelled against this Court with a mind to tarnish and malign the image of this Court before the Hon'ble High Court. Dayal, as alleged. Without further details it is hoped that those Annexures and copies of orders will belie the twisted and distorted pleas as adopted in the Civil Rule and also the contemptuous allegations levelled against this Court with a mind to tarnish and malign the image of this Court before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court while disallowed any stay of the proceeding of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1553 of 1993, which was filed by the management against the decision of this Court regarding preliminary issue and directed this Court to dispose of the reference within six months the management was very much up and doing to defer and drag the reference case on this or that pleas without any reasonable and satisfactory grounds. Ultimately, it asserted many untrue facts distorting and-twisting the real facts and levelling some contemptuous allegations in the Civil Rule with a mind to malign and tarnish the image of this Court before the Hon'ble High Court. This Court denies all such allegations. In the premises, it is most fervently craved before the Hon'ble High Court to draw a contemptuous proceeding against the petitioner of the Civil Rule for the said contemptuous allegations against this Court." 8. The order dated 4,2.93 passed by the Court is quoted below : “Cross-examined the workman and evidence closed related to the pre-issues for decision as corporated in order dated 19.3.91. Heard argument and award reserved." 9. The order dated 18.8.93 passed by the Court is quoted below : "Partly cross-examined MW 6 Mr. MM Kapur. While his cross-exami­nation is continuing a petition bearing No. 422 along with a message submitted stating that his wife is indisposed and he has been informed to return to Delhi immediately. On this ground he is released with a direction to appear on 15.9.93 to complete his cross examination. Another witness Mr. AK Bhusari was examined. In course of exami­nation some questions regarding some oral orders asking Mr. Kapur to enquire some matters were asked. Mr. Kapur proves some documents in favour of the management when it is presumed that verbal orders; regard­ing those documents are irrelevant and such questions were not allowed. The management vide petition No.423 prayed to allow the witness to tes­tify the verbal orders. This witness have no authority to give verbal orders to Mr. Kapur. Mr. Kapur proves some documents in favour of the management when it is presumed that verbal orders; regard­ing those documents are irrelevant and such questions were not allowed. The management vide petition No.423 prayed to allow the witness to tes­tify the verbal orders. This witness have no authority to give verbal orders to Mr. Kapur. The Regional Sales Manager of the management was supreme to give any direction in writing and as such the prayer to allow this witness to answer such question is irrelevant. However, other matters regarding which the witness were questioned to answer were already recor­ded in his evidence. The petition to the fact of giving verbal orders by the Regional Sales Manager is disallowed. The examination and cross exami­nation of Mr. BK Bnusari have been completed and he is discharged. The management vide petition No.4^1 prayed to summon the Superintendent of Silchar Medical College to appear with certain documents/ registers. The petition is allowed. Issue summon accordingly if steps taken forthwith specifying the registers/documents. Fix 15.9.93 for cross-examination of MW 6 and further hearing which will continue conseque­ntly till conclusion of the evidence of both sides and argument." 10. Civil Rule No. 3151 of 1993 has been filed against the order dated J8;8.93 passed by the Labour Court which quoted above and the prayer in this application is that the order dated 18.8.93 passed by the Labour Court be quashed and pending disposal of the Rule, the further proceedings of the Reference Case No. 18 of 1988may be stayed. 11. The order dated 18.10.93 passed by the Labour Court is at Annexure XIII which is quoted below : ''The workman ready with his witness and counsel. The management today too filed petition No. 555 praying for adjournment on the ground that until further order of the Hon'ble High Court to be passed in Civil Rule No.2420 of 1993 the proceeding should be stayed as the management (Demanded transfer of the ease from this Court. The Hon'ble High Court : in its initial order dated 26.8.93 in the said Civil Rule has not stayed proceeding. Rather Hon'ble High Court stated in this order that if the matter .is not disposed either in this date of hearing the petitioner may .file a petition before the Labour Court praying for time which shall be allowed by the Labour Court. Rather Hon'ble High Court stated in this order that if the matter .is not disposed either in this date of hearing the petitioner may .file a petition before the Labour Court praying for time which shall be allowed by the Labour Court. Pursuant to this order, this Court vide its order dated 15.9.93 allowed adjournment in favour of the management while a revision petition was filed by the management the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No, 1553 of 1993, without allowing any stay in f.avour of the management directed this Court to dispose of the instant case within 6 months. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 12 of the Assam Industrial Disputes Rules also specify the period of disposal of the Reference, stating the mode of adjournment. In several previous orders this Court tried to dispose of the case, which is an oldest one in this file, at an early date in compliance with the legal provisions. But the manage­ment repeatedly on some grounds which were not at all satisfactory sought adjournment and for ends of justice adjournment were allowed, sometimes with costs. The modus operandi of the management in seeking adjournment appears to defect the ends of justice. As result this Court in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court's order in Civil Rule No. 1553 of 1993 and also the provisions of law could not smoothly proceed to dispose of the case. Heard learned counsel for both sides, and under the above circumst­ances this petition, for the last time, is allowed fixing 11.11.93 for hearing. If the management either will seek any adjournment or fail to conduct its case the rest of the hearing will take its own course for disposal of the case on consideration of the existing evidence on record and^ evidence, if any; to be adduced by the workman. In the event of any further adjournment if sought by the management, which shall not be allowed or in absence of the management. The evidence of management's witness No.6;, Mr. MM Kapoor, whose cross-examination would not be completed for the reasons stated on order dated 18.8.93, also take its own course under provisions of law. In this contest it stated that the management should produce Mr. Kapoor for completion of hrs cross-examination and other witnesses, if it desires to examine. The rest of the Bearing will consecutively continue till conclusion of argument." 12. In this contest it stated that the management should produce Mr. Kapoor for completion of hrs cross-examination and other witnesses, if it desires to examine. The rest of the Bearing will consecutively continue till conclusion of argument." 12. A notice of motion was Issued in this case on 10.11.93 and further proceedings of the Reference Case was stayed. Thereafter both the matters were heard together. 13. I have heard Shri DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and Sbri BK Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 in both the cases. 14. Let us first take up the question of transfer as urged by Shri Choudhury. 15. It is settled law that any problem arising out of an industrial relati­onship has to be looked at from the consideration of social justice which is becoming the part of the industrial law. A social justice has comprehensive sweep and it is neither pedantic nor one sides but is founded on socio-econo­mic quality. It demands a realistic and pragmatic approach for resolving controversy between the capital and the labour by holding it on an even scale. That the concept on industrial operations in modern times have become complex and complicated and for the efficient and successful function of industries. Various amenities for those working in it are being essential for a peaceful and healthy atmosphere (See 1964 (3) SCR 724, JK Cotton Spinning and Weaving Company and 1973 (1) SCR 185 , Ahmedabad Manufacturing Kelico Printing Company Limited.) 16. The Court endeavours to resolve the competent claims of employers and employees by finding a solution which is just and fair to both the parties with the object of establishing harmony between the capital and labour, and good relationship. The ultimate object is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on the principle of fair play and justice (See Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. Workman, AIR 1969 SC 306 ). 17. The Industrial Disputes Act is calculated to ensure social justice to both employer and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about an existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. 17. The Industrial Disputes Act is calculated to ensure social justice to both employer and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about an existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. The Act is self contained Act which provides for suitable machi­nery by deciding disputes that arises between the employees and employers by adjudication or arbitration on considerations of justice, equity and good conscience (See AIR 1958 SC 353 , Workman of Dimakachi Tea Estate). So, the ultimate object is the desire of the state to provide a forum which may be unhindered by legalistic consideration. Section 10 of the Industrial Dis­putes Act (hereinafter referred to Act) provides.-for reference of industrial disputes where there exists or apprehension of disputes, (our promoting a settlement or to a Labour Court or to a Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The amendment made in 1982 under section 10 carry provisions for expediti­ous disposal of reference by imposing obligation on the appropriate Govt. prescribing the time for disposal of the references. 18. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the procedures, powers and dudes of the authorities set up under the Act where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court. Section 15 requires that the Labour Court or the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as practi­cably on the conclusion there on submit its award to the appropriate Govt. Section 7 of the Act provides for constitution of Labour Court. The Act itself does not prescribe any procedure to be followed in dealing with the matters came before the Labour Court, Tribunal etc. The sub-section (1) of section 11 permits them to follow such procedure as they may think fit subject to any Rules that may be made. If the Rules prescribed a particular procedure, they have to follow that and no other procedure. Herein Assam Rules have been framed. 19. A Labour Court is required to settle a dispute according to the principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience and law without attaching undue importance to legal technicalities. The Labour Court are not bound by the strict, rule of the Evidence Act. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act does not make the Act applicable by its own force to such a proceeding. The Labour Court are not bound by the strict, rule of the Evidence Act. Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act does not make the Act applicable by its own force to such a proceeding. So, such a Court is entitled to proceed on the basis of oral or documentary evidence which cannot be strictly admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. No doubt, this does not mean that a person adjudicating a dispute in a judicial manner can be permitted to decide a case upon evidence which is better than a gossip outside the Court. In a Calcutta case AIR 1958 Calcutta 226 (Borrakar Coal Ltd.vs LAT) it was held that the copies furnished by the Union as exhibits in the case without any supporting proof cannot be relied upon technical or academic consideration of onus are out of place in industrial adjudication. 20. In AIR 1964 SC 719 (M/s Khardah and Co. Ltd. vs The Workman), the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : "It is perfectly true that in dealing with industrial matters, the Tribunal cannot allow evidence to be led by one party in the absence of the others and should not accept the request of either party to admit evidence after the case has been fully argued unless both the parties agree." 21. In Civil Rule No. 2402 of 1993 it is stated in Annexure VII and VIII that certain statements were not correctly recorded by the Presiding Officer. The witness was fully examined and cross-examined and the deposi­tion was recorded in English. The witness after having gone through the same has put their signatures and now by Annexure VII and VIII, an attempt is made to negate the effect of the evidence earlier given by him. This is not allowed by law. The law on this point is settled that the record of the Court must be accepted as the correct and a party later on by filing an affidavit cannot say that it is not correct. It is also settled that under ordinary circumstances, it is not necessary or permissible to allow an witness once examined and dismissed by a party to be recalled for further examination. That the Advocate is expected to examine him on all materials touching his case. Unforseen situation may however, develop and there may be also inadvertent omission. It is also settled that under ordinary circumstances, it is not necessary or permissible to allow an witness once examined and dismissed by a party to be recalled for further examination. That the Advocate is expected to examine him on all materials touching his case. Unforseen situation may however, develop and there may be also inadvertent omission. In such cases, the Court may exercise discretion allowing a witness to be filled. But surprise or prejudice to the other parties should not be allowed nor if could a party be allowed to 411 up the lacuna in evidence under the pretext of recall. The Court at their discretion may. permit a witness to be examined by other party verbally again during the trial but the Court is to take care to exercise the discretion so as not to cause any disadvantage to other party or should not be subject to trick or artifice. The Judge except under very special circumstances cannot permit a party after the witness discharged to prove a material fact. The right to recall the " witness who already given evidence is not the personal right but is the right of the which is properly seized to which the question arises. Under the Code of Civil Procedure in exercise of the power under Order 18 Rule l7, the Court has always power to recall a witness at any stage of the proceeding and to put any question it pleases in any form (see section 155 bf the evidence Act). But this power of recall cannot be exercised to give undue benefit to a party and here in the instant case this power was not exercise by the Court and in exercise of my writ power, I cannot hold that this discretion was not properly exercised. After all a litigation is not a .game of chess and it is not expected that in every stage of the litigation certain new things shall be allowed to spring up. Here is a case where a witness gave certain answers and they were properly recorded. Thereafter, the witnesses after going through the evidence signed it. The witness is not a lay man he can read and write English and it was for him to point out to the Court at the time of signing that the answers recorded by the Court ate not correct. Thereafter, the witnesses after going through the evidence signed it. The witness is not a lay man he can read and write English and it was for him to point out to the Court at the time of signing that the answers recorded by the Court ate not correct. By filing affidavit,it is not expected and/or allowed that he should negate the statements made by him earlier in the Court, So this ground of the petitioner for recalling the two witnesses, ie Shri MM Kapoor and Shri Bhusari, was rightly rejected and the refusal of the Court to correct the answers is also perfectly legal. If this practice is allowed and encouraged and if this is the law then there will be no sanctity with regard to the depositions recorded by a Court inasmuch as after obtaining the copies by the lawyer, the lawyer can always point out and say that certain statements which were recorded were not made by the witnesses. This will introduce a state of uncertainty in the administration justice and the very purpose of cross-examination and examination-in-chief shall be set at naught. 22. The next question is whether the order dated 18.10.93 passed by the Court requires any interference, I have perused the order which as been quoted above and I find that this order is a valid order and calls for no interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 23. The next question is whether as prayed for this case should be transferred from the Court of present Presiding Officer to some other Court The procedure for transfer of a case from one Court to other has not been' provided in the Act. So, we are to get guidelines from section 24 and 25 of the' Code of Civil Procedure as well as well as the general principal-of transfer: 24. It is settled law that transfer should not be ordered for reasons of sentimentality as because merely a Judge has given a finding on an identical question of fact or law in a previous case. The mere fact that a Judge in an earlier case made certain remarks is not a ground for transfer of a case. Adverse remarks during hearing regarding the merit of the case are no valid ground for transfer. The approches against the Advocate is not an sufficient ground for transfer. The mere fact that a Judge in an earlier case made certain remarks is not a ground for transfer of a case. Adverse remarks during hearing regarding the merit of the case are no valid ground for transfer. The approches against the Advocate is not an sufficient ground for transfer. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehen­sion on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done is not sufficient. Apprehension must appear to the Court to be reasonable. Ample materials must be placed before the Court on which the judicial mind of the Court can reach the conclusion, that is to serve ends or interests of justice this should be done on a consideration of the question of expediency which involves a careful balancing of many factors. Transfer should be made, that is to say in the light of relevant circumstances if judicial discretion is satisfied transfer should be made in the larger interest of administration of justice. 25. Let us now take up certain cases on this point. AIR 1966 SC 1418 (Gurucharan Das Cbadha vs. State of Rajasthan) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 pointed out as follows : "A caw is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that be entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumst­ances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasona­bleness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension." 26. To judge of the reasona­bleness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension." 26. Considering the facts of that case, Supreme Court rejected the transfer application, (ii) AIR 1977 SC 2429 (RV Industries vs. Ratanal Sarma) Supreme Court taking an over all view of the case, allowed the application for transfer, (iii) AIR 1986 SC 1896 (Union of India vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee) the Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in AIR 1958 SC 309 , AIR 1965 SC 720 and an unreported decision, pointed out as follows : "The power of this Court to transfer a suit or proceeding from one State to another State is power which should be used with circumspec­tion and caution but if the ends of justice so demand in an appropriate case, this Court should not hesitate to act." 27. The relief under Article 226 is discretionary. The reliefs are to be granted subject to certain self imposed limitations. In exercise of this power the Courts should not act as Courts of appeal or revision to correct mere error of law or fact. The jurisdiction is merely supervisory. In this case though bias has been sought to be argued, the fact consisting personal bias has not been specifically alleged and established, only inference are sought to be drawn from the orders passed by the Labour Court. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1572 (Mahapatra vs State of Orissa) in such a case the Courts should remember that when suitors lose their cases before a judicial or quasi judicial tribunal, they are unable or unwilling to see the correctness of the verdict and prove" to attribute that verdict to a bias in the mind of Tribunal. That also happens in this case, the decision on the preliminary issues was against the petitioner and the petitioner is trying to avoid the trial by that Presiding Officer. Further, the equity of this case does not demand that the relief of transfer sought for should be granted. 28. That also happens in this case, the decision on the preliminary issues was against the petitioner and the petitioner is trying to avoid the trial by that Presiding Officer. Further, the equity of this case does not demand that the relief of transfer sought for should be granted. 28. In Civil Rule No. 3151 of 1993, the order dated 18.10.93 quashing of which is prayed for is an interlocutory order and no interference of the same at this stage is also called for. 29. This being the law, now let us have a look at the allegations made. The allegations have been enumerated in paragraph 22 to 30 of the Civil Rule No. 2402 of 1993 and those statements are stated to be true to the knowledge of the deponent. It is not known how these statements can be true to the knowledge of the deponent. Paragraph 22 speaks of reasonable apprehensions but nothing has been detailed what are the reasonable apprehensions. Para­graph 23 is almost a repetition of paragraph 22, save and except awarding adjournment cost. Adjournment cost can be awarded by the Court and awarding an adjournment cost can be no ground for transfer of a case from one Court to the other. Paragraph 24 and 26 speak regarding non-recording and mis-recording of the statements of the witnesses. That aspect of the matter has been dealt with earlier. Paragraph 27, 28, 29 and 30 are general in nature. From the reading of this statement I am not convinced that any ground of transfer of the case has been made out by the petitioner. 30. Accordingly, this application ie CR No. 2402 of 1993 is rejected. 31. As indicated earlier, I have found that the order dated 18.10.93 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court is a valid order and in that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order, accordingly Civil Rule No. 3151 of 1993 is also stands rejected. 32. As a dismissed workman has been dragged to the Court, I award a cost of Rs. 2.000/- against the petitioner to be paid to respondent No. 4. The stay order stands vacated. 33. Before I part with the record, I direct as follows : The workman was dismissed on 25.2.88. The reference was made on 19.8.88. 32. As a dismissed workman has been dragged to the Court, I award a cost of Rs. 2.000/- against the petitioner to be paid to respondent No. 4. The stay order stands vacated. 33. Before I part with the record, I direct as follows : The workman was dismissed on 25.2.88. The reference was made on 19.8.88. More than 6 years have elapsed from the date of dismissal, so the parties shall appear before the Labour Court at Guwahati on 30.5.94. The Labour Court at Guwahati shall fix the next date of hearing and by taking hearing from day-to-day shall complete the adjudication within 15th of July, 1994. The Labour Court shall bear in mind the mandate of law indicated earlier that it is required to dispose of the reference expeditiously. Send a copy of the judgment to Labour Court, Guwahati immediately. 24. This disposes of both the Civil Rules ie Civil Rule No. 2402 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 3151 of 1993.