JUDGMENT V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 22.1.2013 passed by payment of Wages Authority, Ahmedabad, in Misc. Application No. 53 of 2007 in P.W. Application No. 483 of 1998 below Exh. 33, whereby, the authority permitted the respondent No. 1 herein to cross examine the witness who has filed an affidavit at Exh. 32. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Shri Mustufa Abdulbhai Sipai and respondent No. 2 have preferred an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act of 1936, which came to be registered as Payment of Wages Application No. 483 of 1998 before the Payment of Wages Authority - Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The said applicants also preferred an application under section 17(A) for interim relief. It is submitted by him that the Payment of Wages Application No. 483 of 1998 has been rejected by the authority by an order dated 28.11.2006. Thereafter, Shri Mustufa Abdulbhai Sipai and the respondent No. 2 herein have preferred Misc. Application No. 53 of 2007 in the aforesaid Payment of Wages Application No. 483 of 1998. In the meantime, Shri Mustufa Sipai has expired on 20.11.2007 and therefore his legal heirs were brought on record. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay thereafter submitted that the respondent No. 1 herein submitted an application Exh. 23 in Misc. Application No. 53 of 2007 for service of notice to the present respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. It is submitted by learned advocate that the Labour Court issued the notice in the Application below Exh. 25 in pursuance to the order passed below Exh. 24 on 21.1.2011. It is a case of the petitioner that the bailiff of the Labour Court wrongly affixed the notice issued by the Labour Court at the premises of the petitioner. Therefore, advocate for the petitioner submitted an application dated 6.4.2011 Exh. 27, the payment of wages authority and Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed an order on 4.2.2012 below Application Exh. 27. By way of the said order, the Labour Court observed that notice Exh. 25 was served to the third party M.D. Shah. Therefore, advocate for the petitioner submitted an application dated 6.4.2011 Exh. 27, the payment of wages authority and Labour Court, Ahmedabad passed an order on 4.2.2012 below Application Exh. 27. By way of the said order, the Labour Court observed that notice Exh. 25 was served to the third party M.D. Shah. However, as per the case of the third party, the said property is not of ownership of her and therefore, the Labour Court directed the said third party (present petitioner) to produce the documentary evidence with regard to the said property and direction was also given to file an affidavit. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay thereafter submitted that the present petitioner filed an affidavit on 28.2.2012 alongwith documentary evidence below Exh. 32 in pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by the authority-Labour Court. It is pointed out that the representative of respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted an application Exh. 33 in Misc. Application No. 53 of 2007, petitioner also filed reply to the said application. The grievance is made that the Payment of Wages Authority-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, by an impugned order passed below Exh. 33, permitted the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the witness i.e. the present petitioner who has filed an application Exh. 32. 4. Learned Advocate in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case submitted that the impugned order is bad, illegal and perverse and therefore, this Court may quash and set aside the same while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He thereafter contended that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have not sought any relief against the present petitioner and the petitioner is not party to the said proceedings. However, the notice issued by the authority in the Misc. Application No. 53 of 2007 has been wrongly affixed by the bailiff at the premises of the petitioner. She has filed an application that the said property on which the notice is affixed, does not belong to respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, Labour Court ought not to have granted permission to the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the petitioner. 5. Learned Advocate thereafter contended that the petitioner has produced the documentary evidences alongwith the affidavit below Exh. 32, from which, it is clear that the said property does not belong to respondents No. 3 to 5. Therefore, Labour Court ought not to have granted permission to the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the petitioner. 5. Learned Advocate thereafter contended that the petitioner has produced the documentary evidences alongwith the affidavit below Exh. 32, from which, it is clear that the said property does not belong to respondents No. 3 to 5. Therefore, if the respondents No. 1 and 2 wanted to controvert the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, they could have filed the documents to rebut the same and therefore the order permitting the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioner. I have also gone through the documents produced on record. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner has challenged an interim order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority-Labour Court, Ahmedabad. By way of the said order, permission is given to the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the petitioner. The notice issued by the authority--Labour Court was affixed on the property of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the authority -- Labour Court that respondents No. 3 to 5 are not carrying on the business at the said place. Affidavit alongwith documents is also filed by the petitioner. Thus, when the petitioner is before the authority--Labour Court, wherein, the case of the petitioner is that the said property does not belong to the concerned respondents, the respondent No. 1 wanted to, cross-examine the petitioner on certain aspects. Thus, I am of the opinion that though petitioner is not a party to the aforesaid proceedings, when it is a case of the petitioner on affidavit before the authority--Labour Court that a particular property is not of ownership of the respondents No. 3 to 5 herein, it is open for the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the petitioner on certain aspects. Thus, no illegality is committed by the authority--Labour Court while passing the impugned order. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner because of the said order. Even otherwise the impugned order is an interim order passed by the authority--Labour Court and therefore also while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not like to interfere with the same in the facts of the present case. 7. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner because of the said order. Even otherwise the impugned order is an interim order passed by the authority--Labour Court and therefore also while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not like to interfere with the same in the facts of the present case. 7. At this stage it is required to be observed that this Court passed an order on 28.4.2015, wherein, this Court has observed that petitioner has to disclose the information regarding her family members, who are concerned with M/s. Kamlesh Textile, Vijay Textile and Purnima Textile. For getting necessary information, learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken time and thereafter matter was adjourned from time to time before this Court. However, today learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner can disclose the information with regard to the respondent No. 3 only. However, she is not having information with regard to respondents No. 4 and 5. Thus, as per the direction given by this Court, petitioner has not disclosed the information of her family members, who are connected with the respondents No. 3 to 5 firms. Thus, from the aforesaid order, it is clear that though time was granted by this Court to the petitioner in April, 2015, petitioner has not supplied the said information. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition Dismissed