Dismissed¶31

C.Duraisamy v. The Management of

Madras HC1 Jun 2026WP/18188/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; High Court of Judicature at Madras; K. Surender, J.; Article 226; certiorarified mandamus; Principal Labour Court, Chennai; I.A.No.8 of 2026 in I.D.No.238 of 2015; recall of Management witness M.W.3 for further cross-examination refused; cross-examination already ran into 12 pages; case of year 2015; two earlier document-production applications dismissed and not challenged; recall sought only to protract proceedings; grounds vague; no order as to costs; connected W.M.P.No.19544 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

Recall of M.W.3 was sought only for the purpose of further protracting the case, the case being of the year 2015 and M.W.3 having already been cross-examined extensively, the cross-examination running into 12 pages. ¶28

C.Duraisamy Vs The Management of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18188 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 18188 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.19544 of 2026

¶7

C.Duraisamy S/o. G.Chandrasekar, No. 1/35 1st Street, Chettiyar Agaram, Chennai-600 077

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Management of S.S.D.Oil Mills Company Ltd., Chennai-600 056.

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and call for the case records of the impugned order dated 8.04.2026 in I.A.No.8 of 2026 in ID No.238 of 2015 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same and consequently direct the Principal Labour Court, Chennai to permit the petitioner/Workman to recall M.W.3 for further cross-examination in I.D.No.238 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathiya Murthi

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a

¶16

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to and call for the case records of the

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP No. 18188 of 2026

¶20

impugned order dated 8.04.2026 in I.A.No.8 of 2026 in ID No.238 of 2015 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same and consequently direct the Principal Labour Court, Chennai to permit the petitioner/Workman to recall M.W.3 for further cross-examination in I.D.No.238 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai.

¶21

The petitioner herein is the petitioner before the Labour Court. He has filed I.D.No.238 of 2015 and during the course of trial, on behalf of the Management, M.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. The petitioner seeks to recall the witness M.W.3 for further cross-examination. The reason is that, the petitioner has left out some important questions which would prove his case. The Labour Court found that the reasons given by the petitioner for recalling M.W.3, cannot be entertained, since M.W.3 was cross-examined in detail earlier and his crossexamination runs into 12 pages. Further, the reason stated is that the case is of the year 2015 and the intention of the petitioner appears only to protract the proceedings.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, prior to recalling the witness M.W.3, two other applications were filed, calling for certain documents and those documents were for the purpose of confronting M.W.3 during crossexamination itself.

¶23

When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed that no application has been filed questioning the rejection of the two earlier petitions seeking production of certain documents.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP No. 18188 of 2026

¶27

The petitions calling for the documents, though dismissed, the

¶28

petitioner has not filed any appeal/writ petition questioning the dismissal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said documents were required for questioning M.W.3. It is apparent that recall of M.W.3 is only for the purpose of further protracting the case.

¶29

It is pointed out by the Labour Court that the case is of the year 2015

¶30

and M.W.3 was cross-examined extensively earlier, which runs to 12 pages. The grounds raised by the petitioner are vague. There are no grounds made out to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶31