The Appellate Authority has broad jurisdiction to record evidence and issue document production orders, and courts should refrain from interfering with interlocutory orders to prevent unnecessary litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The Petitioner, a management entity, has filed the present writ petition at an interlocutory stage of an appeal pending before the 1st Respondent, the Appellate Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Shops Act"). The 2nd Respondent, who was employed as a Senior Vice President in the Petitioner Company, challenged an order denying him employment dated 30.11.2016 by filing an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Shops Act before the 1st Respondent. The appeal was registered as TSE Case No. 1/2017, and notice was issued to the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement dated 03.07.2017. In response, the 2nd Respondent submitted a reply statement dated 06.10.2017, to which the Petitioner subsequently filed a rejoinder dated 31.01.2018.

4. The Petitioner contended that the appeal was not maintainable, asserting that the 2nd Respondent had voluntarily tendered their resignation, which was accepted by the Petitioner, and therefore, the question of withdrawing such resignation did not arise. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent filed an application for the production of documents in I.A. No. 11 of 2018, seeking the production of 16 documents through a petition dated 21.05.2018. The Petitioner, in its counter statement dated 17.09.2018, opposed the application, arguing that an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Shops Act is a summary proceeding and should not be used as a means for an extensive inquiry. While the Petitioner agreed to produce certain documents, it contended that some were irrelevant and further maintained that, having resigned from employment, the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to seek such documents.

5. After hearing both parties, the authority passed the impugned order dated 23.10.2019. In determining the interim application, the authority framed three issues. On the first issue, it observed that since the 2nd Respondent had filed an appeal against non-employment, he had no connection with the outcome of the domestic enquiry findings. Regarding the second issue, the authority held that Document Nos. 1 to 5 and 13 need not be produced, and similarly, Document Nos. 6 to 11 and 16 were also deemed irrelevant. As for Document Nos. 12, 14, and 15, which comprised email correspondence, the authority noted that the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to seek them. However, despite this observation, the 1st Respondent directed the Petitioner to produce Document Nos. 12, 14, and 15 by the next hearing date, 08.11.2019.

6. In the impugned order dated 23.10.2019, the 1st Respondent directed the production of the following documents:

“xii) Email exchanges between Robert Moster and petitioner between the period 6.8.2016 to 30.11.2016.

xiv) Copy of Conduct Policy document

xv) Resignation / termination employment policy along with notice period prevailing at the time of resignation and withdrawal by petitioner.”

The 2nd Respondent did not raise any grievance regarding the denial of certain documents.

7. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the interim order directing the production of certain documents, which was admitted by this Court on 06.03.2020. However, no interim stay was granted in the Miscellaneous Petition during the pendency of the writ petition. When the matter was listed on 06.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“After briefly hearing both parties, the learned counsel for the respondent requested time to obtain instructions regarding the specific documents required concerning Document No. 12, which has been ordered for production, as well as the specific emails related to Document No. 14, which includes a copy of the Conduct Policy document. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a copy of the Conduct Policy document would be provided to the respondent’s side. Concerning Document No. 15, which pertains to the resignation and termination employment policy, in