Disposed

The Management of Doosan v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC4 Apr 2017WP/7928/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a Labour Court dismissal of an application to reopen evidence. The Court permitted the petitioner a final opportunity to present evidence by a fixed date and imposed costs for judicial delay.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to reopen evidence by April 25, 2017; Rs. 3,000 awarded as costs to the second respondent.

The Management of Doosan Vs The Presiding Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.7928 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8677 of 2017

¶6

The Management of Doosan Power Systems, India Private Limited, (Formerly known as Foosan Chennai Works

¶7

Private Limited),

¶8

No.18/2A, Sennerkuppam Bye Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056. ...Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Presifing Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶11

2.D.Kannan. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directions to call for the records from the file of the first respondent herein in I.A. No.1 of 2017 in I.D. No. 664 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the order dated 17.02.2017.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Balaji

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.Bharathi (For R2) R1-Court.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard Mr.H.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶17

2.The petitioner filed an application to reopen his evidence being the respondent in I.D.No.664 of 2010. The said application was dismissed rightly by the Labour Court/first respondent herein having found that the earlier opportunities have not been utilized and the petitioner was absent.

¶18

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

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a change in Management and that is the reason why the opportunities would not utilized. Now the petitioner is ready and willing to utilize the opportunity.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that despite several opportunities having been given, the petitioner has been dragging on the matter. Learned counsel also submit that a specific date may be fixed for letting evidence on behalf of the petitioner and there must be a default clause that if on the day the petitioner is not ready and willing, then the matter will be proceeded by the Labour Court.

¶21

5.Though this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court, in order to give a final opportunity, the petitioner is hereby permitted to reopen its evidence on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Labour Court on 25.04.2017 and complete its plausible evidence and on that day itself, the second respondent can cross examine the petitioner. Thereafter the Labour Court/first respondent herein shall proceed with the matter.

¶22

6.For dragging on the matter for so long, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by way of cost. It is made clear that this order is not comply with, then it is well open to the first respondent to proceed the matter not by ignoring the order passed.

¶23

7.With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Asst.Registrar (CS III )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

cse/abr

The Presifing Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.H.Balaji,sr.19836

¶32

W.P.No.7928 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8677 of 2017

¶33

ad(co) ss(6/4/2017)

¶34

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

The Management of Doosan v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Doosan v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Desia Pudhu Thozhilalar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.v.Raajah, Vs The Commissioner cum Estate

P.Purushothaman, Vs The Commissioner

Janaki Joseph, W/o.Joseph, Vs The Corporation of Chennai

Miss.Devi, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Suguna, Vs The District Collector