A court is not obligated to grant infinite adjournments for the production of evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure when a party deliberately delays proceedings for over a decade, and such refusal to grant further time does not constitute a violation of natural justice.

ORDER

This Writ Petition had been filed challenging the orders dated 06.04.2026 in I.D.No.206 of 2015 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents though were designated as Trainee, they were engaged by the petitioner, in the Quality Control Department without any training and they were directly involved in the manufacturing process. However, there is no dispute that the respondents fall within the definition of Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents herein filed I.D.No.206 of 2015 seeking the relief of reinstatement along with full back wages, continuity in service and all other attendant benefits. During the course of I.D. proceedings before the Labour Court, there were totally 59 cases filed by the workers similar to the respondents herein, challenging their termination. The Labour Court concluded the proceedings, and orders were passed directing to set aside the order of dismissal of the respondents, granting continuity of service, and all other attendant benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner / Management submits that the Labour Court failed to provide any opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence. In the absence of such opportunity being given or in the event of one of the parties to the lis being absent, the procedure as contemplated under order XVII of C.P.C., has to be followed. The learned counsel further submits that if at all the Management has failed to adduce any evidence, ex-parte orders ought to have been passed, however the Court had passed orders on merits which is contrary to Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 of C.P.C. The learned counsel therefore submits that for the reason of not granting any opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence, the order passed by the Labour Court has to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court for the limited purpose of granting opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence.

4. Mr.M.Gokul Prasanth, learned counsel who takes notice for respondent/workman submits that the Labour Court has granted ample opportunity to the Management, but the Management failed to adduce evidence, and as such, the case was protracted for nearly 10 years. Having granted several opportunities to the Management, the Labour Court had thought it proper to dispose of the case on merits on 06.04.2026. Hence, there is no scope for the Management to seek remand of the case.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Labour Court had directed the Management to let in evidence to prove the charges levelled against the respondent. During the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner / Management filed several writ petitions and obtained an order of stay of the proceedings of the Labour Court. Finally, all the writ petitions were dismissed, directing the Management to let in evidence. After the writ petitions were disposed of, several adjournments were granted by the Labour Court, enabling the Management to adduce evidence. However, the Management failed to adduce evidence and the evidence was closed. The matter was thereafter adjourned for arguments. After three adjournments, on 16.02.2026, the learned counsel for the workman had argued the case. Again on 18.02.2026, an application was filed by the Management to reopen the evidence of the Management. The said petition to reopen the evidence on behalf of the Management was supposed