The duty of the petitioner to prove their case and the limitations on compelling a person to give evidence.

1. The petitioners are workmen employed by the 1st respondent management. They filed C.P.No.328 of 2011 under Section 33 ©(2) r/w 33 © (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming 50% of the wages from 22.6.1985 to 6.1.2009 and full wages from 7.1.2009 till the date of filing of the Claim Petition. The claim is based on the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1039 of 1998.

2. The 1st respondent management filed counter affidavit disputing the claim. Thereafter, evidence was let in by the writ petitioners. The first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he was cross-examined. 18 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. During the cross-examination, the 1st respondent marked 11 documents. Thereafter, the 1st respondent took a stand that he did not let in any evidence on their side. At that stage, the petitioners filed applications in I.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013 in C.P.No.328 of 2011, one to reopen the case and the other to issue summons to the Managing director of the Management to give evidence.

3. After hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent Labour Court passed an order dated 26.2.2013 in I.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013 in C.P.No.328 of 2011 dismissing the applications on the ground that the petitioners cannot compel the Managing Director to give evidence before the court, particularly when the management took a stand that they are not letting in any evidence.

4. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the aforesaid order of the Labour Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Labour Court committed an error in refusing to summon the Managing Director to give evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on two decisions, namely, i) National Textile Corporation (WBAB & O) Limited Unit: Arati Cotton Mills vs. Learned II Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and another reported in 2006 – II-LLJ 315. and ii) V.Veeraraghavan vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore reported in 1992 II LLJ 137. These decisions were also cited before the Labour Court. Still the Labour Court passed the order, rejecting the applications of the petitioners.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the orders passed by the Labour Court.

7. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order of the Labour Court are extracted hereunder:

"3. Therefore, it is duty of the Court to decide whether it is essential to issue summons to the witness R.Ramamurthi, or not to be decided. On behalf of the petitioner, one petitioner namely Krishnamoorthy was examined as W.W.1 and marked 18 documents, on behalf of the respondent management, there is no oral evidence but 11 documents were marked at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1. The counsel appearing for the petitioner cited the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta reported in 2006 II LLJ page 315 and 1992 II LLJ 137. In support of his case that this Court has got power to issue summons to the witness at any stage of the case. It is no doubt true that this Court has got power to issue summons to any witness whose appearance and evidence are considered to be material to the case but as per the case hand is concerned, the respondent management filed 11 documents and the same was marked as Ex.R.1 to R.11. It is seen from the records that the present claim petitions were filed by the petitioner on the basis that they are entitled to wages and benefits on the basis of the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 3.11.08 made in W.P.No.16499 of 1998 insofar as grant of relief to the respective workmen.”

4. So it is not essential to issue summons to the witness Ramamurthi and the examination of this witness is not a material one. So considering the affidavit and also the counter of the affidavit of the respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove their case and the witness ought to be examined is n