hearing the arguments. As pointed out earlier, the unions
have already filed the written submissions on 24th March 2008
and their oral submissions have also been heard on 25th March
2008. As against this, the three other references of which
the transfer was sought by the petitioners are still at the
stage of recording of evidence of the petitioners. The
petitioners have not to adduced their evidence in the said
references though the unions have closed their evidence in the
year 2005. The net result of passing the order of clubbing
all the six references together will be further delay in
disposal of the said three references which are made time
bound by this court and which are at the stage of hearing the
arguments. As pointed out earlier, in the three references
which are sought to be transferred, the unions have closed
their evidence in October 2005 and for a period of two and
half years, the petitioner-company has not adduced any
evidence. Therefore, the learned Incharge President was right
in declining the prayer to club all the six references which
will result in delay in disposal of the said three references.
It is pointed out that the time limit fixed by this court for
disposal of the said three references has already expired and
a request letter has been sent by the learned Member for
extending the time. Passing an order of clubbing all the six
references will amount to defeating the direction issued by
this court on 6th December 2006 of time bound disposal of the
said three references.
