JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging orders dt. 31.07.2018, 21.12.2018 & dt. 01.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur. The first order dt. 31.07.2018 is under challenge by which the Labour Court as per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the petitioners to produce their evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. 09.08.2018. The second order dt. 21.12.2018 is under challenge by the said order the documents which were filed along with application were not taken on record on the ground that there was no justification to produce the documents belatedly and further the Labour Court refers earlier order dt. 31.07.2018 and direction given by the Supreme Court to decide the case in urgent manner. The third order dt. 01.03.2019 is under challenge whereby the Labour Court has found that on 17.01.2019 peremptory order was passed to produce the evidence and the next date was fixed on 31.01.2019 and since the witnesses were not produced on 31.01.2019, the right of leading the evidence of the petitioners, has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Labour Court has denied vital right of the petitioners to lead evidence and by passing these impugned orders the Labour Court has prevented the petitioners from adducing the documentary as well as oral evidence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been vigilant in prosecuting their case and certain documents were required to be produced as evidence, the same right cannot be denied by the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel has further submitted that the documents which were sought to be placed on record by an application dt. 23.08.2018 were the relevant documents and for deciding the dispute, such documents are required to be considered, failing which the claim of the petitioners will be seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents does not suffer any prejudice on account of the evidence being produced by the petitioners and they too have right of rebuttal. Learned counsel has submitted that the Labour Court has not applied due application of mind and in mechanical manner, the application filed by the petitioners is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents does not suffer any prejudice on account of the evidence being produced by the petitioners and they too have right of rebuttal. Learned counsel has submitted that the Labour Court has not applied due application of mind and in mechanical manner, the application filed by the petitioners is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel has also submitted that for proper adjudication of the dispute if the evidence including documents are placed on record even upto the stage of final arguments, the Labour Court should not adopt the technical view and should not deprive the parties from right of fair proceedings before the Labour Court. 5. Mr. Indresh Sharma, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners have been negligent in conducting their case before the Labour Court. Learned counsel has submitted that on one pretext or another, various orders passed by the Labour Court, are put to challenge before this Court. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the order which has been passed on 01.03.2019 closing the evidence of the petitioners is based on earlier peremptory order passed on 17.01.2019, directing the petitioners to produce their witnesses on 31.01.2019 since the petitioners failed to comply with the order dt. 17.01.2019, the Labour Court had no option except to close the evidence of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel has also submitted that initial order which was passed on 31.07.2018 directing the parties to produce the evidence by 09.08.2018, was not complied with and every time the Labour Court on subsequent date after 31.07.2018, was informed that the writ petition would be filed against order dt. 31.07.2018 and as such the petitioners are indulging in unnecessary litigation. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners had all the right to produce their evidence on the stipulated dates and further if any documentary evidence was to be produced, the same could have been produced, when the witnesses of the petitioners were examined. 8. Learned counsel has submitted that the Apex Court in the present matter arising under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, has directed all the Courts throughout country including High Court's to dispose of all the matters in the time schedule fixed by the Apex Court. 9. This Court finds that the Apex Court in Misc. 9. This Court finds that the Apex Court in Misc. Application No. 171/2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 411/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246/2011, has passed order directing the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals who are seized with the matter under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 to dispose of such matter without granting unnecessary adjournments keeping in mind that the time frame fixed by the Apex Court of six months from the date of reference. 10. This Court finds that the matters which are pending before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals in respect of disputes arising under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 are required to be decided as per directions given by the Apex Court. The order passed by the Apex Court in Misc. Application No. 171/2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 411/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246/2011 (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that this miscellaneous application should be disposed of by directing the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals in seisin of matters under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, to dispose of the same without granting any unnecessary adjournments keeping in mind that the time frame fixed by this Court is six months from the date of reference. We also request the High Courts that while entertaining matters against the orders passed by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, the High Court will keep in mind the above time schedule so as to ensure that the order of this Court is fully complied with. The above direction would also apply to reference with regard to the termination as well as the voluntary nature of the acceptance of notified terms of employment. The miscellaneous application is, accordingly, disposed of." 11. This Court finds that not only the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the entire country including all the High Courts have been requested to keep in mind the time schedule and to ensure that the order of the Apex Court is complied with. 12. This Court in the present facts of the case finds that the Labour Court has granted ample opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. By filing different applications on different occasions, every endeavour has been made to violate the time limit fixed by the Apex Court. 13. 12. This Court in the present facts of the case finds that the Labour Court has granted ample opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. By filing different applications on different occasions, every endeavour has been made to violate the time limit fixed by the Apex Court. 13. This Court after keeping in mind the order of the Apex Court, finds that the Labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order and it has rightly come to the conclusion that the employees are not abiding by the time limit and further they are filing different application on different occasions. The endeavour of the parties to the dispute should be to resolve the dispute and not to prolonged the dispute. This Court is constrained to observe in respect of these disputes pending under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955, as various petitions are coming before this Court challenging the different order-sheets and this Court is unnecessarily burdened with such litigation. 14. This Court finds that once the outer time limit is fixed by the Apex Court, no Court should make endeavour to violate the time limit fixed by the Apex Court. 15. This Court further holds that the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Court, which are deciding the matters referred to them under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 and dispute with regard to the termination as well as the voluntary nature of the acceptance of notified terms of employment and same matters, are required to be decided as per directions given by the Apex Court. 16. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court and accordingly the writ petition dismissed.