Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
K.Sugumaran – Appellant
Versus
The Management, Tamilnadu Telecommunications Limited – Respondent
WP Nos. 8000, 8005, 8009, 8032, 8037 and 10089 of 2026 & WMP Nos. 8656, 8659, 8663, 8688, 8692 and 10886 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha
For the Respondents: Ms.Lawshere, Mr.P.Balasubramanian
Similarly placed employees entitled to produce documents for wage claims after prior identical claims upheld finally.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenged Labour Court order dated 20.01.2026 dismissing applications for document production in claim petitions under Section 33C(2) and Section 11 read with Rule 39 of Industrial Disputes Act. Facts involved plant closure in 2017 without retrenchment, deputation offers refused by employees, prior similar claim petitions allowed and upheld by High Court. Court found petitioners similarly placed, Labour Court erred in denying additional evidence. Issues framed by Labour Court on workman status under Section 2(s), pre-existing rights, company functioning, and proof of calculations. Ratio: Prior claims by similarly placed workmen allowed and finalised without appeal; equity demands liberty to produce documents for arrears and medical assistance claims from 2018-2023. Writ petitions allowed, impugned order set aside, liberty granted to petitioners to let in evidence through management documents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to labour court dismissal of document production in wage claims post-plant closure. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners' claims for arrears mirroring prior successful cases. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent consents; liberty granted for evidence production based on precedent. (Para 6 , 7) |
C O M M O N O R D E R
Since the issues involved in all the petitions are one and same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. These Writ Petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Labour Court, Kancheepuram and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent / Management to produce the documents.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are as follows:- The petitioners are the employees of the respondent-Company and during August, 2017, the Maraimalai Nagar plant of the respondent ceased operations due to financial constraints. Though the respondent did not retrench, terminate or discharge any of the employees, however, requested one of its promoter companies to absorb all 67 employees on deputation. While most employees accepted the said deputation, a few workmen, including one similarly placed co-worker as that of the petitioners refused the said deputation. On earlier occasion, the workmen, who refused the said deputation, filed Claim Petition Nos.27,28 and 52 of 2019 before the Labour Court under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, seeking computation and payment of wages and the said Claim Petitions were allowed by the Labour Court, Kancheepuram and directed the respondent for payment of wages. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent / Management challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.26618 of 2023 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed and the order passed by the Labour Court was confirmed and the Management did not file any further appeal, thereby the order passedby the Labour Court attained fianlity. The petitioners, being similarly placed persons as that of the workmen, who preferred Claim Petition Nos.27, 28 and 52 of 2019, has filed Claim Petitions and pending claim petitions, Interim Applications were filed seeking production of machine log books, duty allocation records, wage registers, service records, related documents and annual returns of the Company, all of which are the exclusive custody of the Management and the said applications were dismissed, challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed claim petitions claiming certain arrears of salary and medical assistance for different periods from the year 2018 to 2023. After hearing the petitioners as well as the Management, the Labour Court posted the claim petitions ‘for orders on 08.07.2025’ and subsequently, the respondent filed a memo to hear the Claim Petitions afresh and on the basis of the memo, the Labour Court suo motu reopened the Claim Petitions for clarification for the following points:-
‘1. Whether the petitioner is workman as per Section 2(c) of the ID Act.
2. Whether there is pre-exciting right.
3. Whether the respondent is still functioning. 4. Proof for the calculation arrived to be filed.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.s under Section 11 r/w Rule 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules to recall and re-open the case of the petitioners to let in further evidence and to direct the respondent to file certain documents to prove the nature of work performed by the petitioners. However, the said I.A.s were dismissed by way of an Impugned order dated
20.01.2026, challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
5. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier, certain employees of the respondent have preferred Claim Petitions in C.P.Nos.27, 28 and 52 of 2019 seeking to disburse the balance/ arrears of salary and the same were allo
