Judicial review under Article 226 is limited in interlocutory matters; reopening evidence requires sound justification and cannot be a mere attempt to fill gaps.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 05.08.2025, of the Labour Court, Hosur in the interlocutory applications, filed to reopen and permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in I.D's.

2. As the issues raised in the writ petitions are common, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

WP No.33982 of 2025

3. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in manufacture of highly technical electrical equipment such as High Voltage Instrument Transformers, AIS/GIS Switchgears, CTs, CVTs, EMVTs, Bushings, Capacitors etc. and allied products. The respondents were engaged as technician trainees from 08.04.2019, and their training period was periodically extended till 07.04.2022. The petitioner's case is that due to pandemic induced downturn, the traineeships could not be continued, and therefore the respondents were duly relieved with an ex-gratia amount exceeding statutory retrenchment benefits. The respondent's challenged the said ex-gratia by raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Hosur. After completion of initial evidence, the petitioner sought to adduce additional evidence and for the said purpose filed the applications. The Labour Court however rejected the applications. Aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's application for reopening the evidence and for filing additional documents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

4. The respondents filed detail counter stating inter alia that the petitioner was given ample opportunities by the Labour Court to adduce additional evidence, but the petitioner failed to utilise the opportunities. The respondent stated that the petitioner filed the said application with the sole object of protracting the proceedings. The respondent further stated that the Labour Court cannot be faulted, since the affidavit for reopening and adducing additional evidence was bereft of particulars. The respondent submitted that the Labour Court had exercised its discretion in a sound and reasonable manner and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.

5. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner's application for reopening the evidence and adducing additional evidence was rejected by the Labour Court on three grounds, that, the adjudication passed by the Court revealed that the petitioner had not utilised earlier opportunities provided to him for producing additional evidence, that the averments stated in the petitioner's affidavit lacked details of witness and documents produced by him, which would obviate the respondent from effectively contesting the petition and that the petitioner had failed to aver how the proposed evidence was material and necessary to decide the controversy between the parties.

7. From the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the ID was filed on 20.10.2022, and the petitioner entered appearance on 14.11.2022 and thereafter, the respondent completed his side evidence on 14.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner examined his witness M.W.1, and later, on 30.05.2024, M.W1 was cross-

examined. Thereafter, the Labour Court adjourned the matter to 03.10.2024, for additional evidence of the petitioner. On 03.10.2024, the petitioner did not summon his witness and therefore the Labour Court adjourned the case to 17.10.2024. On 17.10.2024, the petitioner filed adjournment petition, but the same was dismissed by the Labour Court and the petitioner's side evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the I.A on 24.10.2024, seeking to reopen the case for adducing additional evidence and for markin