Judgment :- In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is the Management of S.G.S.Limited, Chennai and the second respondent is the employee. 2. The second respondent was terminated from service on 16.12.98 for absenting himself unauthorisedly. He raised a dispute in I.D.No.581 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent-Labour Court. The evidence on behalf of the second respondent was closed on 3.7.2001 and the evidence on behalf of the writ petitioner-management was closed on 7.12.2001. After the evidence was closed, it appears that the petitioner, by letter dated 10.12.2001, required the second respondent to report for work in the petitioner establishment at Gandhi Dham, Gujarat. The second respondent refused to join duty, as the dispute was pending. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.11 of 2002 to reopen the dispute and I.A.No.12 of 2002 to recall the second respondent for further cross-examination. These two applications were dismissed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, by order dated 24.7.2002. In fact these applications were filed placing reliance on the subsequent letter of the petitioner dated 10.12.2001 and the reply of the second respondent dated 14.12.2001. The Labour Court posed the following questions for consideration:- (i)Whether the petitioner/respondent is entitled to reopen the case? (ii)Whether the petitioner/respondent is entitled to recall W.W.1 to cross-examine, and to what relief? On considering the facts, the Labour Court found that though there was a new development pending the dispute, the offer of employment by the petitioner and the refusal by the second respondent will have no bearing as those documents were admittedly after the filing of I.D. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the second respondent that these two documents will no way be helpful to decide the issue already on hand. The Labour Court also found that the subsequent development will not have any evidential value and holding so, dismissed both the applications. It is not in dispute that the said order was in force, as the same was not challenged till such time the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.25848 and 25849 of 2003 on 5.9.2003. 3. After the dismissal of the above two applications, the petitioner filed I.A.No.247 of 2002 on 27.8.2002 to reopen the evidence and I.A.No.248 of 2002 on the same day to permit the petitioner to lead evidence. 3. After the dismissal of the above two applications, the petitioner filed I.A.No.247 of 2002 on 27.8.2002 to reopen the evidence and I.A.No.248 of 2002 on the same day to permit the petitioner to lead evidence. The above two applications were also filed on the same set of facts which were pleaded while I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2002 were filed. These two applications were also dismissed by the First Additional Labour Court, by order dated 14.5.2003 on the ground that the earlier order dated 24.7.2002 in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2002 to reopen and recall the second respondent were dismissed and the said order had become final. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner did not appear at the time when these applications were heard, nevertheless, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the same on merits. Questioning the order dated 14.5.2003 in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2002, the petitioner has filed W.P.Nos.25846 and 25847 of 2003. 4. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subsequent development viz., the letter of the petitioner dated 10.12.2001 requiring the second respondent to report for work and the consequential refusal by the second respondent to accept the same will have a bearing on the dispute which is pending at least for consideration as to the award of backwages in the event the second respondent succeeds in the dispute. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in "HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MADRAS v. THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND ANOTHER (1985 (II) LLN 787)" to contend that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for reopening and recalling of witness is unjust, not legal, as the dispensation of justice depends on ascertainment of truth and nothing else. He would also submit that there could be no question of shutting the request for reopening and recalling of witness on technical ground only on the reason that the matter is posted for arguments. He would further rely upon the judgment of this Court in "CHENNAI AIRPORT CONTRACT WORKERS UNION, CHENNAI v. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER (2002 (I) LLN 353)" to contend that the Labour Court/Tribunal should not misdirect itself by unnecessarily discussing about the relevancy of the document even before the document could be marked. 5. I have heard Mr.R.Nethaji, Authorised representative for the second respondent. 5. I have heard Mr.R.Nethaji, Authorised representative for the second respondent. He would submit that the petitioner having failed to challenge the order in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2002 dated 24.7.2002 in time, cannot now challenge the subsequent order dated 14.5.2003 in I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2002 which were dismissed solely on the ground that the earlier applications in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2002 were dismissed. He would submit that in any event, the petitioner did not represent before the Labour Court when I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2002 were heard and disposed. He would also submit that the offer of employment by the petitioner and the rejection of the same by the second respondent will have no bearing on the dispute pending, as the rejection of the offer was only on the ground of pendency of the dispute. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of the respective counsel. The jurisdictional Labour Court to permit any party to the proceedings to let in evidence during the pendency of proceedings, cannot be disputed. Such a question was considered by T.Sathiadev, J. in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case (supra). Similarly, the same view was taken by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. in the Chennai Airport Contract Workers Union case (supra). In fact the learned Judge has followed the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case also. However, such power of the Labour Court either to reopen or to recall any witness or allowing the parties to mark documents does not mean conferring an automatic right on the parties to the proceedings to invoke the same. Whether it is the management or the employee, while seeking to reopen the dispute and recall the witness should also establish that the applications were bona fide. In fact in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case itself, this Court has observed as follows:- "So long as proceedings are pending, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the Labour Court to permit any party to a proceeding to amend or modify the pleadings. It has been repeatedly held by the highest Court of land, that amendment of a petition should not be rejected on technical grounds and, to avoid protraction of proceedings and to prevent miscarriage of justice, this should be liberally looked upon. It has been repeatedly held by the highest Court of land, that amendment of a petition should not be rejected on technical grounds and, to avoid protraction of proceedings and to prevent miscarriage of justice, this should be liberally looked upon. No doubt, the bona fides in instituting a petition, the circumstances which had prevented from such a petition being filed earlier, and how far the other side would be handicapped if no reasonable time is granted for opposing it, and the like, will have to be taken into account." 7. In the light of the above, it must be considered as to whether the act of the petitioner was bona fide in filing applications for reopening of the dispute and for recalling of the witness. The dispute was raised in the year 1999. Till the evidence of the management was closed on 7.12.2001, the petitioner had not chosen to offer employment to the second respondent. After the evidence was closed, the petitioner had chosen to offer employment to the second respondent in its letter dated 10.12.2001. At the time when the second respondent was terminated, he was working in Vyasarpadi, Chennai. The offer for employment was made by the petitioner requiring the second respondent to join duty at Gandhi Dham, Gujarat. This offer was not accepted by the second respondent in his letter dated 14.12.2001, as his claim and right to service were being adjudicated before the Labour Court. These two documents are subsequent to the closure of evidence. Though the Labour Court/Tribunal and for that matter this Court, will not appreciate the evidentiary value of a document which is sought to be marked before such document is allowed to be marked, for the purpose of finding out the bona fides of the petitioner seeking to reopen the dispute and recall the witness, the nature of the document must necessarily be considered. To that extent the finding of the Labour Court, that these documents will not in any way advance the case of the management in the industrial dispute, cannot be faulted. Factually also, the petitioner had not chosen to offer employment immediately after the dispute was raised or during the pendency of the dispute and before the evidence was closed, but offered the same only to make a ground for consideration as to the backwages in case the dispute was allowed. Factually also, the petitioner had not chosen to offer employment immediately after the dispute was raised or during the pendency of the dispute and before the evidence was closed, but offered the same only to make a ground for consideration as to the backwages in case the dispute was allowed. The purpose behind the applications are obvious as admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner even in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions it is stated that these documents will have a bearing on the dispute. The refusal to accept the offer of employment is only on the ground that the dispute was pending. Such a refusal cannot be a ground for even considering the denial of backwages, as it is axiomatic that no employee can be compelled to act against his claim in the dispute. That apart, the petitioner after inviting an adverse order on 24.7.2002 in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2002 on merits, did not challenge the same immediately thereafter, and allowed the Labour Court to proceed with the hearing. On the other hand, the petitioner had chosen only to file further I.A.Nos.247 and 248 of 2002 for the same relief on the basis of the same averments. These applications cannot be entertained on the face of the unchallenged earlier order rejecting the similar request. The petitioner also did not appear and represent in the hearing when the applications were taken up for hearing. In the circumstances only, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the subsequent two applications by its order dated 14.5.2003. While challenging the order dated 14.5.2003, the petitioner has chosen to question the earlier order dated 24.7.2002 also and that too, only on 5.9.2003, after a period of more than thirteen months. The above would indicate that the petitioner did not act bona fide. In the circumstances, I do not find any error of law in the impugned orders. 8. For all the above reasons, I find no merit in all the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.31710 of 2003 is also dismissed.