JUDGMENT : Mauna M. Bhatt, J. 1. Workmen have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “15(a) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, directing the order dated 17.12.2021 not permitting the petitioners to reopen the stage of evidence as well as order dated 27.12.2021 not adjourning the matter for the purpose of challenging the order dated 17.12.2021 before this Hon’ble Court is prima facie illegal, improper, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the provisions of law, and therefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside. (b) Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, directing the learned Labour Court to reopen the stage of evidence of the petitioners, permit the petitioners to file their respective affidavits and permit the petitioners to proceed with the matter in any stipulation of time that this Hon’ble Court thinks fit. (c) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, your Lordship may be pleased to stay the proceeding pending before the learned Labour Court, as the right of the petitioners to lead the evidence is still not opened by the learned Labour Court as well adjourned is also not granted. (d) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts in brief are as under: For the alleged illegal termination, the workmen had raised dispute before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and the same is pending adjudication since 2000 registered as Reference Case No.2008/2000. It is case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the reference, a purshis was given by workmen vide Exh.201 dated 07.03.2014 to close the stage of evidence, consequentially vide Exh.202, the stage of oral evidence by respondent Company was also closed and vide Exh.219 dated 20.02.2019, the stage of leading evidence by company was closed. At the time when such purshis for closing to lead evidence was filed by workmen, they were not available or traceable. However, on account of Covid-19 pandemic all went to their native place where they were contacted by their co-workmen and thereafter application dated 17.07.2021 was preferred seeking to reopen the stage of leading evidence and to examine the witnesses. At the time when such purshis for closing to lead evidence was filed by workmen, they were not available or traceable. However, on account of Covid-19 pandemic all went to their native place where they were contacted by their co-workmen and thereafter application dated 17.07.2021 was preferred seeking to reopen the stage of leading evidence and to examine the witnesses. The said application was rejected by order dated 17.12.2021, aggrieved by which, present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioners - workmen and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent - Company. 4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioners made following submissions: 4.1. The order dated 17.12.2021 of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking to reopen the stage of evidence of the petitioners – workmen is illegal. The Labour Court held that the dispute is of the year 2000 and since the matter is kept for arguments, leading of evidence cannot be permitted at this stage. On account of termination, the remaining workman left the place and working in different parts of country so they were not traceable, however on account of Covid-19 Pandemic all went to their native place and through their co-workers they could be traced. Out of 50 workmen, 32 workmen have been examined before the Labour Court and all of them have been cross-examined by the advocate for the respondent – Company. It is true that petitioners have closed their right to lead the evidence on 07.03.2014 and respondent- company’s right was closed on 20.02.2019 and thereafter the matter was placed for written submissions on 01.03.2019, however, since the workmen are now available present application dated 17.07.2021, was filed seeking permission to lead the evidence. 4.2. Further, it is true that the dispute is of 2000, and considerable time has lapsed, however, if the remaining 18 (50-32) workmen are not permitted to lead their evidence, great prejudice shall be caused to them because the dispute was raised in relation to their illegal termination as well. If the evidence is not led with regard to their termination, it would affect their claim of backwages. Most importantly, Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”) provides for Labour Court to call for evidence at any stage of proceedings before it. If the evidence is not led with regard to their termination, it would affect their claim of backwages. Most importantly, Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”) provides for Labour Court to call for evidence at any stage of proceedings before it. He submitted that in view of Rule 17 of the Rules, the Labour Court ought to have permitted the present petitioners to file their respective affidavits and to lead their evidence to avoid prejudice and injustice to them. The affidavits to be filed by the present petitioners are similar to the affidavits which have been filed by their co-workmen and thus, there is no independent evidence to be led by the petitioners. All the 18 workmen are ready with the affidavits and ready for cross-examination and, therefore, the contention of the respondent that every workman is to be independently cross-examined and that would cause delay is not correct. 4.3. Leading evidence by way of filing affidavit and permitting the respondent – Company to cross-examine the workmen is not going to cause prejudice to the respondent – Company and thereby balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. Non accepting the application to reopen the stage of leading the evidence is contrary to the principles of natural justice and for that reason also the Labour Court may be directed to consider the application seeking to reopen the stage of leading the evidence. He fairly submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by time schedule to lead the evidence and to present themselves for cross-examination if directed by this Court. 4.4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate relied on the following decisions: (a) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr. reported in 2001(3) L.L.N.105 (b) Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thilagam G. and Ors. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Anr. reported 2002 – II-LLJ-66. (c) Decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Hyderabad vs. T.Bal Reddy and Anr. reported in 2002-II-LLJ-709. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent – Company submitted the following: 5.1. Rule 17 of the Rules as contended cannot be used as recourse for re-hearing of the matter. reported in 2002-II-LLJ-709. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent – Company submitted the following: 5.1. Rule 17 of the Rules as contended cannot be used as recourse for re-hearing of the matter. As referred in the Rule 17, reasonable cause is to be put forth to reopen the stage of leading the evidence. In facts of this case, it is evident that as noted by the Labour Court in the order dated 17.12.2021, the petitioners – workman gave purshis vide Exh.201 on 07.03.2014 to close the stage of evidence. Consequentially, the respondent company have closed their stage of leading evidence vide Exh.219 dated 20.02.2019 and the matter was thereafter fixed for submissions vide Exh.221 on 04.03.2020. Once a conscious decision has been taken to close the stage of leading the evidence, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can only be entertained in gross irregularity and in the case of perversity which is not the case here. The conduct of the petitioners – workmen is also to be seen because when a conscious decision was taken to close the evidence, filing of the present petition is nothing but a delaying tactic adopted by them. He strenuously submitted that now the defense of the Company is open and if the petitioners are permitted to lead their evidence, and to file their affidavit, great prejudice would be caused to the respondent – Company. A false case of Covid-19 has been shown because the stage of leading the evidence was closed in the year 2014 and for the first time in the year 2021, this application seeking to reopen the stage of leading the evidence was made. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, then it would amount to leading the evidence at any stage or at any time during the pending proceedings. 5.2. On the decisions relied upon, Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme court judgments are to be read in the context of the facts referred therein. It is not open for the party to lead evidence at any stage and that too, the documentary evidence. He submitted that the facts referred in decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court and decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court are different. It is not open for the party to lead evidence at any stage and that too, the documentary evidence. He submitted that the facts referred in decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court and decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court are different. The grounds taken in the application of Covid-19 is of no relevance because the stage was closed in the year 2014, at which time, Covid-19 was not there. Today, some other ground has been taken which is not part of the application and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be contended. Admittedly, in the year 2019, the stage of evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for argument. Thereafter, in the year 2021, application was made and thus, it is a clear case of afterthought. Moreover, the application of closing the process in the year 2014 has not been withdrawn and, therefore, the present application filed seeking to reopen the stage of leading evidence is not maintainable. He, therefore, submitted that this petition may not be entertained. 6. Considered the submissions. For adjudication of the issue raised in this petition, revisitation of the following facts would be relevant. 6.1. The petitioners alongwith other workmen (totaling to 50 in number) had raised a dispute for their alleged illegal termination before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in the year 2000. 6.2. Out of the total 50 workmen, 32 number of workmen were pursuing the reference so filed and had voluntarily chosen to file a purshis in the year 2014 for closing their stage of evidence. 6.3. On receipt of such an application, the respondent company also filed a purshis for closing their stage of evidence and in the year 2019, the stage of leading oral evidence by the respondent company was also closed. 6.4. It was only on 17.07.2021 that the remaining workmen i.e. the present petitioners on the pretext of being unaware about the reference proceedings, decided to file an application seeking reopening of stage of evidence. This application came to be rejected under order dated 17.12.2021, which is the subject matter of present proceedings. 7. Heavy reliance has been placed by the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner on Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, which reads as under: “17. This application came to be rejected under order dated 17.12.2021, which is the subject matter of present proceedings. 7. Heavy reliance has been placed by the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner on Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, which reads as under: “17. Evidence: - A Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or an arbitrator may accept, admit or call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings before it, or him and in such manner as it or he may think fit.” 8. It is true that Rule 17 confers discretion in favour of the Labour Court to admit and call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings, however the same power is not unfettered and is required to be used judiciously. A conspectus of the present proceedings, viewed minutely from judicial angle, would reveal that this is a not a case where the petitioners have been denied their right to lead evidence, thereby causing any injustice meted out to them. On the contrary, the present is a case where the petitioners, though having participated in the reference proceedings alongwith other workmen in the year 2000, voluntarily choose to not pursue their references later on. With the other workmen having filed evidence and a purshis in the year 2014, much water has flown. The respondent company has also filed a purshis for closing their stage of evidence, oral evidence is also closed and other workmen have also been cross-examined. Most importantly, present is a case where the defence or version of the respondent company has now come on record. In such circumstances, if permission is granted to the present petitioners to lead evidence, not only would the proceedings that have transpired from 2014 to 2024 i.e. 10 years go to waste, the petitioners may utilize this opportunity of filing affidavits now to counter the stand placed on record by the respondent company. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners reiterate the scope of Rule 17 and the powers available with the Labour Court for taking evidence at any stage. However, all the three judgments so relied on also clearly state that: (i) such power is not unfettered (ii) the power depends of the facts and circumstances of each case (iii) stage of the proceedings are required to be ascertained. However, all the three judgments so relied on also clearly state that: (i) such power is not unfettered (ii) the power depends of the facts and circumstances of each case (iii) stage of the proceedings are required to be ascertained. In the present case as noted above, the “stage of the proceedings” is not such where in case the reliefs as prayed for is granted, it would result in no prejudice being caused to the respondent company. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that while Rule 17 does confer discretion on the Labour Court, the said discretion cannot be used while causing serious prejudice to the respondent company, since equities and balance of convenience has to be maintained between the parties. 10. At this juncture, I also wish to deal with the contention of the petitioners that on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, they re-united with their fellow workmen and on being made aware of the stage of the proceedings, decided to file the applications dated 17.07.2021. It is on record that the purshis for closing stage of evidence was filed by the fellow workmen in the year 2014. Admittedly and indisputably, COVID-19 Pandemic started in the year 2020. Merely comparing the two dates i.e. 2014 and 2020, there is no explanation put forth by the petitioners for the lax approach exhibited between 2014 to 2020. 11. In view of the above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.