JUDGMENT : F.I. REBELLO, J. 1. The petitioners had approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 26th November, 1993 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners against the respondents alleging unfair labour practices has been dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that their complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not led any evidence in the case. It is contended that on 30th October, 1991 the petitioners had applied to record evidence as not recording evidence may go against the complainant. It is principally alleged that for the purpose of effecting transfer respondent No. 1 has relied on various settlements. These settlements it is contended were not with any union but with the workers and as such would not be binding on the petitioners or the persons on whose behalf the complaint is filed. By refusing to grant their request for oral evidence, it is contended that the order dated 30th October, 1991 is liable to the quashed and set aside. 2. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents it is contended that on 14th August, 1990 the petitioners herein had set out that they had brought on record all required documents and facts and other materials and did not want to lead oral evidence. It is further contended that in so far as settlements are concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioners were caught by surprise. In fact in the application for interim relief taken out by the petitioners herein in paragraph 11, the respondent No. 1 herein had disclosed that the transfer had to be effected pursuant to settlement set out therein. More specifically settlements dated 18th July, 1976, 3rd September, 1979 and 4th April, 1983. It is further contended that the petitioners thereafter have filed their written arguments on 20th April, 1993 (8th July, 1992). 3. It may be clarified that the typed date shows 20th April 1993 but that is crossed out by hand and 8th July, 1992 has been incorporated. In the written arguments which is much after the application of 30th October, 1991 the petitioners have raised no grievance that they were not permitted to lead oral evidence. Further the interim order refusing interim relief is dated 18th January, 1988. The reply disclosing the settlement was already before the Court and disclosed to the petitioners herein. In the written arguments which is much after the application of 30th October, 1991 the petitioners have raised no grievance that they were not permitted to lead oral evidence. Further the interim order refusing interim relief is dated 18th January, 1988. The reply disclosing the settlement was already before the Court and disclosed to the petitioners herein. This finds reference in paragraph 3 of the interim order. A further fact that has come to light is that even though the interim relief was rejected, the workers whose cause the petitioner is representing have not resumed their duties at the place where they were transferred. 4. Considering the circumstances, can it be said that the Order of the Court is liable to be quashed and set aside? The application to lead evidence does not set out that the petitioners are seeking to lead oral evidence. All that is set out is that they be permitted to record the evidence. In their earlier application dated 14th August, 1990 they had set out that they had brought on record all required documents and facts and other materials and do not want to lead oral evidence. Even assuming for a moment it can be said on behalf of the petitioners that in fact their application was for oral evidence, the petitioners even at the stage when they filed written arguments chose not to complain that they were denied the opportunity of leading any evidence. On the contrary they have proceeded with the complaint. In these circumstances, even assuming that no order was passed on their application dated 30th October, 1991 the petitioners at least cannot now complain that they were not permitted to lead evidence after filing their written arguments in the matter. The other fact against the petitioners would be even after the interim order rejecting the application for interim relief they have chosen not to join at the place of transfer. In these circumstances, this would not be a fit and proper case where this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Considering the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. In the light of that Rule discharged. 6. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.