ORDER 14.11.2003 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party No.2. 2. The Management of Orissa Consumers Co-operative Federa¬tion Ltd. has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in I.D. Case No.50/1993 (Annexure-9) wherein the petitioner has been asked to adduce evidence at the first in¬stance. 3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present writ petition are that an industrial dispute was raised by O.P. No.2. workman and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, for adjudi¬cation of the following dispute : “Whether the dismissal of Sri Sridhar Gochhayat, Ex-Branch Manager by the Management of M/s. Orissa Consumers Cooperative Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar, w.e.f. 13.4.87 is legal and/ or justified ? if not, what relief Shri Gochhayat is entitled to ?” The aforesaid reference was registered as I.D. Case No.50/1993 on the file of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. The workman having filed his statement of claim, the management filed its written statement. The Labour Court by its order dated 23.3.2001 directed the workman to lead evidence first in the case. Thereafter the workman filed an application with a prayer to direct the first party-management to lead evidence. The Labour Court considering the said petition of the workman by its order dated 21.8.2002 has directed the management to adduce evidence at the first instance since it is a case of dismissal. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Since the dispute was raised by the workman challenging the action of the Management in dismissing him from service, the onus lies on the workman to lead evidence for which, according to the petitioner, the order of the Labour Court is not in con¬sonance with the settled principle of law. 5. Law in this regard is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. (See 1981 (43) F.L.R. 194 : V. K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court (I) and ors.). 5. Law in this regard is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. (See 1981 (43) F.L.R. 194 : V. K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court (I) and ors.). That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, and anr, 84 (1997) C.L.T. 228, has clearly held that in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act where the ag¬grieved workman seeks industrial adjudication, the workman is to lead evidence and if no party leads any evidence before the Tribunal, then the reference has to be answered against the workman and, therefore, it is the workman who is to adduce evidence first. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the workman seeks industrial adjudication it is he who would adduce evidence first. The impugned order of the Labour Court in Annex¬ure-9 is accordingly set aside being not sustainable in the eye of law. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on the date fixed. On appearance of the parties, the Labour Court shall take up the matter for hearing and dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible. In case any adjournment is sought for on filmsy ground, heavy cost shall be imposed on the party seeking adjournment. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above order. No cost. Petition disposed of.