Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER, JJ
P.Bojarajan – Appellant
Versus
P.Subramanian – Respondent
Writ Appeal|W.A.No.751 of 2026|C.M.P.No.7712 of 2026|Writ Petition|W.P.No.2864 of 2021|Claim Petition|C.P.No.129 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Harish
The court affirmed that the admissibility and evaluation of additional documents presented by a workman in a compensation claim should occur in the trial, maintaining no prima facie opinion is necessary at the writ stage.
Headnote:(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Claim Petition - The workman sought a direction for payment of Rs.1,37,631/- with interest. The Labour Court dismissed the claim based on the adjudication of additional documents. However, the writ court allowed the appeal, directing reconsideration of the additional documents presented by the workman and setting a timeline for disposition. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that even a prima facie opinion on the genuineness of documents is unnecessary and that the trial court should assess them for merit during hearings. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Managing Director of the second respondent, challenged the writ court's order allowing the workman to submit additional documents after the Labour Court's dismissal of the claim petition.
Findings of Court:
The writ court determined that the labour court must consider the genuineness of additional documents submitted by the workman.
Issues: The main issues include the admissibility and genuineness of additional documents presented by the workman.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no infirmity in the writ court's order to allow the evaluation of additional documents and emphasized that this evaluation should occur in the due course of trial.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to writ order and claim petition context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's directive on evidence handling. (Para 4) |
| 3. contention regarding forgery of documents. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ appeal dismissed without merits. (Para 6) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]
The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 10.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.2864 of 2021.
2. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The appellant is the Managing Director of the second respondent / the Management of Bojarajan International. The first respondent workman had filed a claim petition in C.P.No.129 of 2012 seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,631/- with interest.
3. During the course of adjudication of the claim petition, an interlocutory application came to be filed seeking permission to produce additional documents. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent / workman filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court.
4. The writ Court considered the issues by examining the records and additional documents produced by the first respondent workman. The writ Court, found that the first respondent workman is entitled to establish the genuineness and validity of the additional documents filed before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ Court, allowed the writ petition and directed the Labour Court to consider the additional documents produced by the first respondent, afford due opportunity to all parties and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and a timeline of three months was also fixed for disposal of the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that additional documents filed by the first respondent workman are forged documents and that the genuineness of such documents can be tested only during the course of trial. He would submit that forming even a prima facie opinion about the documents is unnecessary and therefore, the writ Court directed the Labour Court to test the genuineness of additional documents filed by the first respondent workman.
6. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the writ Court and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
