The court determined that requiring personal appearances for signature verification was an unnecessary judicial exercise, favoring notarized affidavits as sufficient proof.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P13 order dated 09.06.2025 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.264/2023 in C.P.No.61/2022 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. C.P.No.61/2022 is a claim petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1945 , claiming arrears of salary, subsistence allowance, and compensation from the respondents. The respondent herein filed I.A. No.264/2023, contending that the signatures of the petitioners herein on their vakalatnama before the Labour Court are 'fake and forged'. It was also contended that the seal affixed on the Vakalatnama and the written statement are also not 'real'. The respondent herein, therefore, prayed that the petitioners herein may be directed to appear in person for verifying the genuineness of the signatures and seals contained in the vakalatnama and in the written statement filed before the Labour Court. It was prayed that, in the alternative, the Vakalatnama as well as the written statement may be rejected. Though the petitioners herein filed an objection to I.A.No.264/2023, on a consideration of the matter, the Labour Court by the impugned order, directed the petitioners 2 to 4 in I.A.No.264/2023 to appear before the Court on 30.07.2025 for an enquiry regarding the genuineness of signatures and seals contained in the Vakalatnama and in the written statement.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the filing of I.A.No.264/2023 in C.P.No.61/2022 was nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, and an unnecessary exercise was being carried out for the purposes of verifying whether the signatures on the Vakalatnama and in the written statement are genuine. It is submitted that when the concerned respondent had asserted that the seals and signatures were genuine and when the concerned respondents were authorised to represent the company, the Labour Court ought not to have entered into the exercise of conducting an enquiry into the question as to whether the signatures and seals on the Vakalatnama and the written statement are 'fake or forged' or not genuine. It is submitted that, at best, the Labour Court could have directed the concerned officials to file a notarised affidavit affirming that the seals and signatures on the Vakalatnama and the written statement filed before the Labour Court are genuine. It is submitted that such affidavits have been produced before this Court as Ext.P15 series.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contends that there is nothing wrong with the procedure adopted by the Labour Court, and the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting correction and interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the view that the Labour Court has entered into an unnecessary exercise of summoning the petitioners 2 to 4 to appear before the Court to conduct an enquiry into the question as to whether the signatures and seal on the Vakalatnama and on the written statement filed before the Labour Court were genuine. If the Labour Court had any doubt as to whether the signatures and the seals on the Vakalatnama and the written statement were genuine, all that was required was to direct that a notarised affidavit be filed by petitioners 2 to 4 indicating that the seals of the company and their signatures on the Vakalatnama and on the written statement filed before the Labour Court were genuine and were not fake or forged as alleged by the respondent. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court is a sh