JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Management of M/s. Kalinga Hospital Ltd. wherein the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 72 of 2010 has been assailed. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party-Union has raised an industrial dispute regarding the wage revision in different grades including the allowances before the local labour machinery and the conciliation having been failed the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by making a reference is as follows:- “Whether the existing wage structure of the employees of the Kalinga Hospital Ltd., in different grade including allowances needs any further revision. If so, what should be the details?” 3. In the above reference case, the opposite party filed its statement of claim on 5.1.2011 claiming revision of wage structure of the employees of Kalinga Hospital Ltd. in different grades including the allowances as set out in Appendix-II and the petitioner-Management filed its written statement on 7.7.2011 disputing the claim of opposite party-Union on the grounds stated therein which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, pleadings were complete, issues have been framed and the case was posted for hearing. The General Secretary of the opposite party-Union has filed his affidavit evidence on 21.10.2011 and when the petitioner-management cross-examined the witness of opposite party, but without proceeding further with the cross-examination of the witnesses, the Tribunal has directed the opposite party-Union to file claim statement on or before 30.11.2011, the said order is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to allow the opposite party-Union to file fresh statement of claim, once issue has been framed and the matter has been proceeded for recording evidence of the witnesses. 4. Further ground has been taken that by allowing the opposite party-Union in filing fresh statement of claim, the Tribunal has provided opportunity to fill up the lacuna which the Tribunal cannot do. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has defended the order and submitted that there is no infirmity in the same for the reason that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner-management and the Tribunal in the ends of justice has allowed the opposite party-union to file fresh statement of claim. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has defended the order and submitted that there is no infirmity in the same for the reason that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner-management and the Tribunal in the ends of justice has allowed the opposite party-union to file fresh statement of claim. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is evident that a dispute has been referred for adjudication and the matter has proceeded. Parties have submitted their written statement, issues have been framed and thereafter the matter has reached to the stage of evidence and when the cross-examination has to be done by the petitioner-management, the order dated 30.11.2011 has been passed whereby and where under the opposite party-Union has been allowed by the Tribunal to file statement of claim afresh. From the record, it appears that both parties were at the stage of examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. 7. After appearance of the parties and when the case has reached to the stage of evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed opposite party-Union to file afresh statement of claim for the reason that opposite party-Union was knowing about the terms of the reference and in view thereof, he has filed statement of claim before the Tribunal and when the affidavit evidence has been filed by the opposite party-Union, he has been allowed to file fresh statement of claim instead of making parties to lead their evidence for answering the reference. 8. If the order impugned will be sustained to be allowed, the dispute has to be initiated afresh by allowing the petitioner-management to rebut the fresh statement of claim which is not permissible under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, we find that the order dated 30.11.2011 is not sustainable and accordingly the same is quashed. 9. In the result, the matter is remitted before the Tribunal for re-adjudication of the dispute allowing the parties to produce their respective evidence on the basis of which Tribunal shall decide the dispute within period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In terms of the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.