ORDER 1. Orders passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act cum the Labour Court has been assailed by way of filing instant writ petition dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on 18.1.2002. 2. Petitioner's counsel has submitted that the rejection of the application on the ground that various opportunities were given for adducing the evidence which were not availed by the applicant is illegal finding recorded by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Order-sheets have been placed on record which have been referred. 3. Shri Ashok Lalwani and Shri Shishir Dixit learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the order and they have submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was to delay the proceedings, several opportunities were given and conduct is writ large in the various order-sheets which have been referred by them. Shri Ashok Lalwani has submitted that the cost of Rs.500/- was not imposed for examination of the witnesses. 4. The main question for consideration is whether 6-7 opportunities were given as submitted by the respondents counsel. For the first time, case was ordered to be listed for evidence on 7.6.2000, next date fixed was 6.7.2000. On 6.7.2000 prayer was made on behalf of the employer to treat the issue No. 1 as preliminary issue which prayer was rejected by the authority. Thereafter cross-examination of the witness was not made by the employer's counsel on the ground that he was unable to speak due to throat ailment, as such evidence be recorded on the next date. On the next date fixed i.e. 27.7.2000 certain documents were filed on behalf of the employee. The counsel on behalf of the employer again had prayed for time to examine the documents and only thereafter he would be in a position to perform the cross-examination, thus, the next date fixed was also adjourned due to the request made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer. Thereafter the case was listed for evidence on 19.10.2000. The order-sheet dt. 19.10.2000 indicates that certain documents which were filed were objected to by the employer's counsel. An application seeking amendment was also filed by the employer, copy of which was furnished to the employer's counsel. Hence, the Court listed the case on the next date for reply to the application seeking amendment filed on behalf of the employer. The order-sheet dt. 19.10.2000 indicates that certain documents which were filed were objected to by the employer's counsel. An application seeking amendment was also filed by the employer, copy of which was furnished to the employer's counsel. Hence, the Court listed the case on the next date for reply to the application seeking amendment filed on behalf of the employer. Time was also given for filing Vakalatnama of Sandeepa Jain. On 22.11.1000 the amendment application was allowed. The case was ordered to be listed for 22.1.2001 for evidence of the employer. Again an application was filed by the employer on 22.1.2001 for amending the reply, copy of which was given, hence, the Court without recording the evidence listed the case for reply to the application filed on behalf of the employer seeking amendment for 12.2.2001. The case was kept pending either for orders or Judge was on leave. Ultimately the, application was allowed seeking amendment of the reply filed by the employer on 28.5.2001. On 31.5.2001 the amendment was incorporated and thereafter the case was again fixed for evidence of the employee. On the next date which was fixed for evidence again an application was filed on behalf of the employer, hence, authority did not record the evidence and listed the case for reply to the application for 27.7.2001. Case was pending on 27.7.2001, 30.7.2001, 16.8.2001 and 17.8.2001 for orders on application. Ultimately, on 17.8.2001 the date was fixed for recording the evidence of the employee on 28.8.2001. On 28.8.2001 the authority ordered all the witnesses to be kept present otherwise the evidence of the employee would be closed. Next date fixed was 19.10.2001. On 19.10.2001 an application was filed on behalf of the employee, reply of which was proposed to be filed on behalf of the employer. The witnesses were not kept present on the aforesaid date, next date was fixed for arguments on the application filed on behalf of the employee. On the next date the employee's right to argue on the application was closed and thereafter the next date fixed for passing the order was 23.10.2001. On 23.10.2001 the next date fixed was 27.11.2001. On 27.11.2001 the Presiding Officer was on leave and as such evidence could not have been recorded. The next date fixed was 20.12.2001 for orders as Presiding Officer was on leave. On 23.10.2001 the next date fixed was 27.11.2001. On 27.11.2001 the Presiding Officer was on leave and as such evidence could not have been recorded. The next date fixed was 20.12.2001 for orders as Presiding Officer was on leave. On the next date 20.12.2001 in spite of the fact that the Presiding Officer was on leave on the date which was fixed for evidence and the case was only for the purpose of orders the authority imposed the costs of Rs.500/-. Imposition of the costs was not at all warranted as the case was listed only for orders due to the fact the Presiding Officer was on leave on 27.11.2001, then next date fixed was 18.1.2002 on which date the authority had closed the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence on the ground that in spite of the costs and grant of several opportunities evidence has not been adduced, case has been dismissed. 5. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid order-sheets indicates that on two occasions only it could be said that opportunities were not availed. It was not a case of several opportunities given to the petitioner which were not availed. Impostion of the costs of Rs.500/- was not at all warranted. Imposition of the costs is hereby set aside. It was submitted by Shri Lalwani that the costs. was not imposed for examination of the witnesses, however, order dt.20.12.2001 makes it clear that the costs was imposed for examination of witnesses as Presiding Officer was on leave on the previous date, he could not impose the costs for examination of the witnesses while fixing the date for recording of evidence. On the next date 18.1.2002 right to adduce evidence was closed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that as at least on 2-3 occasions counsel for the employer has sought time for cross-examination of the witnesses and several applications were filed on behalf of the employer inter alia for seeking amendment in the reply, as such evidence could not have been recorded by the authority. We are of the opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 6. The impugned order is set aside. We give one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence by keeping the witnesses present on the date fixed by the authority. Petition is allowed. We are of the opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 6. The impugned order is set aside. We give one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence by keeping the witnesses present on the date fixed by the authority. Petition is allowed. Impugned order (P/l) is set aside and imposition of costs of Rs.500/- vide order dt. 20.12.2001 is set aside. Authority to expedite the case. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred in this petition.