( 1 ) ALL these Writ Appeals arising out of a common order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 20741, 20923 and 20916 of 2001 respectively were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in these appeals filed by M/s Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is, whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to reopen the matter enabling the parties to adduce further evidence and mark documents etc once hearing was concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment.

( 3 ) THE controversy arose in the following factual matrix: The 1st respondent herein is a retired employee of the appellant-organisation having retired from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the appellant-management in the year 1998. He filed M. P. No. 75 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad for recovery of the arrears due towards terminal benefits. The learned Labour Court heard the matter on 27. 10. 2000 and reserved the same for orders and directed it to be listed on 8. 11. 2000. According to the petitioner, the matter was suo motu reopened by the Labour Court and posted to 16. 11. 2000 and thereafter further it was further adjourned to 5. 12. 2000 for hearing.

( 4 ) ON 5. 12. 200, the 1st respondent filed an interlocutory application being I. A. No. 403 of 2000 to receive (1) Income Tax certificate issued by the appellant to the 1st respondent dated 31. 3. 1998 and (2) the clarification issued by the Joint General Manager (HRM), HMT Ltd. , dated 4. 11. 2000 on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (s ). According to the 1st respondent, in the clarification issued by the 2nd respondent, it was clarified that the period of training undergone by the trainees can be reckoned for computation of VRS compensation subject to certain criteria. The case of the 1st respondent is that these two documents are traced out after the case was reserved for orders and they are crucial for the purpose of determination of his claim in the main M. P.

( 5 ) ON 19. 1. 2001, the 1st respondent filed another application being I. A. No. 32 of 2000 to reopen the case and to mark the aforesaid documents filed along with I. A. No. 403 of 2000 contending that the Labour Court has inherent powers under rule 17 of the A. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) to take evidence at any stage of the case.

( 6 ) ON 8. 5. 2001, the 1st respondent filed another interlocutory application being I. A. No. 262 of 2000 to recall WW. 1 to adduce further evidence in the interest of justice.

( 7 ) THE appellant resisted the aforesaid applications contending that the matter cannot be reopened after the case is reserved for judgment as once the hearing has been completed and matter is posted for judgment, there is no hiatus between the posting of Judgment and passing of judgment and the applications are thus not maintainable. It was also contended that the clarification issued by the 2nd respondent on 11. 9. 2000 cannot be made applicable to employees retired from service in 1998 as the same would be applicable only to those who had retired under the VRS scheme subsequent to 1998.

( 8 ) ON a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, the Labour Court by three separate orders dated 14. 9. 2001 allowed all the aforesaid applications taking the view that under Rule 17 of A. P. Industrial Rules, 1958, the respondent has a right to adduce further evidence in support of his case and the appellant has also got a similar right to file documents at any stage under Rule 17.

( 9 ) CHALLENGING the orders of the Labour Court, the appellant has filed three separate writ petitions for a writ or order in the nature of writ of certiorari and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Rule 17 of the Rules and also order 20, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also contrary to the well settl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document