Allowed

M/s.Diamond Engineering v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC3 Oct 2018WP/24630/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order dismissing an application for expert signature comparison from xerocopies. The Court upheld the lower court's reasoning regarding the producers of documents and directed the petitioner to cooperate for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Petitioner directed to cooperate with the Labour Court for disposal within one month; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M/s.Diamond Engineering Vs The Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.10.2018 CORAM: THE HON�BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.24630 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.25987 of 2017

¶2

M/s.Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Deputy Managing Director Mr.P.Danaraj 41, Pudupakkam Village, Kelambakkam-Vandalur Main Road, Kancheepuram District. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶3

The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶4

J.Selvaraj .. Respondents

¶5

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in unnumbered I.A. in I.D.No.428 of 2013 dated 06.07.2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Pothiraj

¶6

For Respondents : Court � R1 Mr.A.Velmurugan for Mr.M.Suresh for R2

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by First Additional Labour Court in unnumbered I.A. in I.D.No.428 of 2013 dated 06.07.2017.

¶9

1.1. The order impugned is the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, where the Management has produced xerox copies of the documents and wanted the Court to send the documents containing the signature in the same (disputed and admitted document) for expert opinion for the purpose of comparison of documents.

¶10

1.2. A perusal of the order would go to show that the petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Labour Court has given too many reasons as to why those documents need not to be sent for expert opinion. The first reason is that both the sample documents produced are xerox copies. Ex.M3 is the reply, in which, the socalled resignation is not whispered.

¶11

1.3. The resignation letter of the workman is dated 18.08.2010. The signature in the document is sought to be compared with Ex.M2, which is the letter demanding bonus dated 10.11.2010. Those documents were only xerox copies and not the original documents.

¶12

1.4. The Labour Court has also considered the circumstances that the defence of resignation was not taken before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.

¶13

1.5. However, the Labour Court has indicated that the Court has got ample powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signature.

¶14

1.6. The reasons given by the Labour Court are legal, acceptable and correct. The finding of the Labour Court that the petition filed by the Management is a motivated one with an intention to drag on the proceedings endlessly is found to be correct.

¶15

Despite the Labour Court giving too many reasons for dismissal of the application and despite the Labour Court awarding cost of Rs.500/- payable to the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Chennai, the Management has chosen to challenge this order without any valid grounds.

¶16

The Management is directed to co-operate with the Labour Court for disposal. The management is expected to render utmost co-operation in the disposal of the case realizing their responsibility towards the workman also and towards the Court. The Labour Court shall dispose of I.D.No.428 of 2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

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

¶18

03.10.2018 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶19

Note: Issue order copy on or before 05.10.2018 To 1. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. DR.S.VIMALA, J. ogy

¶20

W.P.No.24630 of 2017

¶21

03.10.2018

M/s.Diamond Engineering v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Diamond Engineering 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

Santhamurthy Vs H.T.L. Limited, Rep. by Its

The Management of Mrf Ltd. Vs Government of Tamilnadu

The Management Vs The Special Deputy

Chennai International Terminal Vs The City Commissioner

S.R.Ramesh, Vs The Chief Engineer

R.Prabu, Vs The Presiding Officer