The Management's right to lead fresh evidence must be availed of at the earliest point of time, and the Labour Court has the discretion to grant permission to lead additional evidence before completion of the proceedings, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.08.1999 made by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.11590 of 1991.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 24.08.1999, in W.P. No.11590 of 1991, in and by which, the learned Judge confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The second respondent, viz., T. Dharmalingam, was employed as Secretary of the Sennampatty Milk Producers'' Co-operative Society Limited/Writ petitioner-appellant. He was suspended for misconduct on 27.09.1983. A show cause notice was issued on 21.06.1984 alleging that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,429/-. The second respondent submitted his explanation. An enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent was dismissed from service on 23.08.1984. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.No.73 of 1985. Before the Labour Court, in view of the stand taken by the Workman, the issue with regard to validity of the domestic enquiry was taken up as preliminary issue. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court reserved for orders. Before order was pronounced by the Labour Court on the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry, an Application was filed by the petitioner/Society to reopen the preliminary enquiry. The Labour Court, by order dated 18.09.1991, reopened the enquiry. The petitioner filed I.A. No.258 of 1990 on 20.10.1990 seeking permission of the court to file an additional counter statement. The second respondent filed counter in I.A. No.258 of 1990 on 07.11.1990. By order dated 28.11.1990, the Labour Court dismissed the Application in I.A. No.258 of 1990, holding that the petitioner having failed to seek permission while filing counter, the same cannot be sought at a later stage by means of an additional counter statement. Thereafter, award was passed by the Labour Court on 06.5.1991 holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the second respondent was vitiated and the second respondent was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Questioning the same, the Society filed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 24.08.1999, after finding that the Management has not challenged the order in I.A. No.258 of 1990 by filing a separate writ petition and that no attempt has been made on the part of the Management to file an application, seeking permission of the Labour court to let in oral and documentary evidence; refused to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition. Questioning the same, the Society has filed the above Appeal.

4. Heard Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant/Society and Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for second respondent/Workman.

5. The only point for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the Labour Court is justified in passing an award, ordering reinstatement of the 2nd respondent/Workman.

6. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Judge committed an error in holding that the order passed in I.A. No.258 of 1990 has not been challenged by way of a separate writ petition, when the order passed in the interim application is merged with the main award. He also contended that when the Management filed Application for letting in additional evidence, the Labour Court committed an error in not granting the same and that the learned single Judge also erred in dismissing the Writ Petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the second respondent, would submit that even though industrial dispute has been raised by the workman as early as i