before the Court for the first time only on 20th September, 2010. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had deliberately avoided to cross-examine MW 2 or was taking unnecessary adjournments for the said purpose. Although the learned Labour Court was fully justified in directing that the proceedings be expedited in view of the fact that it was an industrial dispute relating to the year 2005, in my considered opinion there was no justification for the learned Labour Court to proceed with such a tearing hurry by giving a go bye to the principles of natural justice. It must be borne in mind that the right of cross-examination is vital for a workman to defend himself against the evidence tendered by the witnesses produced against him. The Court ought not to prejudice the workman by closing this right in undue haste as it is an important tool to arrive at the truth. 8. Therefore, the order dated 20th September, 2010 as also the consequential order dated 23rd September, 2010 and impugned order dated 27th September, 2010, cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court to proceed with the matter from the stage of cross-examination of MW 1 and MW 2. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted more than two opportunities for cross-examining the aforesaid witnesses. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the matter pertains to the dismissal of the order passed in 2005, the learned Labour Court is requested to expedite the hearing. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Court with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondent appearing before this Court, for fixing a date for the appearance and cross-examination of
