Advocates:
['m/s S SATHIAMURTHI', '', 'S RAGHUPATHI', 'amp; SYED IZZATH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2013

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

Writ Petition No.11608 of 2013

& M.P.No.1 of 2013

1. C.Krishnamurthy

2. S.P.Moorthy

3. Meer Mohamed Safi

4. B.Sukumar

5. V.Parthiban

6. S.Kumar

7. P.Chinnaiyan

8. K.Mayaraj

9. V.Natarajan

10. E.R.Sreethar

11. P.Kuppusamy

12. M.Pushparaj

13. S.Rajappan

14. R.Babu (draftsman)

15. S.Sivakumar

16. E.Sampath

17. S.Saravanan

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Management of Vibromech Engineers Limited

Corporate Office,

No.115, Industrial Estate

Perungudi, Chennai 96

2. The Presiding Officer

I Addl. Labour Court

Chennai 104

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for

the records of the I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai 104, the 2nd

respondent herein in I.A. Nos. 116 and 117 of 2013 in C.P. No.328

of 2011 dated 26.2.2013 and to quash the same and directing the

2nd respondent to allow the above applications and send summons to

the witness as prayed for.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sathiamurthi

O R D E R

The petitioners are workmen employed by the 1st respondent

management. They filed C.P.No.328 of 2011 under Section 33 ©(2)

r/w 33 © (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming 50% of the

wages from 22.6.1985 to 6.1.2009 and full wages from 7.1.2009 till

the date of filing of the Claim Petition. The claim is based on

the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal

No.1039 of 1998.

2. The 1st respondent management filed counter affidavit

disputing the claim. Thereafter, evidence was let in by the writ

petitioners. The first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he was

cross-examined. 18 documents were marked on the side of the

petitioners. During the cross-examination, the 1st respondent

marked 11 documents. Thereafter, the 1st respondent took a stand

that he did not let in any evidence on their side. At that stage,

the petitioners filed applications in I.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013

in C.P.No.328 of 2011, one to reopen the case and the other to

issue summons to the Managing director of the Management to give

evidence.

3. After hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent Labour Court

passed an order dated 26.2.2013 in I.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013 in

C.P.No.328 of 2011 dismissing the applications on the ground that

the petitioners cannot compel the Managing Director to give

evidence before the court, particularly when the management took a

stand that they are not letting in any evidence.

4. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the aforesaid order of

the Labour Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

contended that the Labour Court committed an error in refusing to

summon the Managing Director to give evidence. The learned counsel

for the petitioners has also relied on two decisions, namely, i)

National Textile Corporation (WBAB & O) Limited Unit: Arati Cotton

Mills vs. Learned II Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and another

reported in 2006 – II-LLJ 315. and ii) V.Veeraraghavan vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore reported in 1992 II LLJ

137. These decisions were also cited before the Labour Court.

Still the Labour Court passed the order, rejecting the applications

of the petitioners.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and gone through the orders passed by

the Labour Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order of the Labour Court are

extracted hereunder:

"3. Therefore, it is duty of the Court to decide

whether it is essential to issue summons to the witness

R.Ramamurthi, or not to be decided. On behalf of the

petitioner, one petitioner namely Krishnamoorthy was

examined as W.W.1 and marked 18 documents, on behalf of

the resp