IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5242 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HOTEL HARRISONS NEW NO.12, OLD NO. 315 VALLUVARKOTTAM HIGH ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI 34. [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI. 2 S.FRANCIS [ RESPONDENTS ] Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 20.1.2010 in I.A. No. 128/2009 in I.D. No.344/2007 and quash the above order. For Petitioner :: Mr.Jayaraman O R D E R The management is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in I.A. No. 128/2009 in I.D.No.344/2007 dated 20.1.2010. 2. It is seen from the records that the 2nd respondent workman raised an industrial dispute. On the report of failure given by the Conciliation Officer, he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court dated 25.9.2007. The case of the 2nd respondent was that he was illegally stopped from July 2001. Though he was promised to restoration of service, the same was not done. The dispute raised by the 2nd respondent was taken on file as I.D.No.344 of 2007. 3. On notice from the 1st respondent Labour Court, the petitioner management filed a preliminary counter dated 18.4.2008 stating that the 2nd respondent is not a workman and the dispute is not an industrial dispute and Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Disputes Act is not attracted. They have also filed an application to try this as a preliminary issue. 4. The 2nd respondent filed an application in I.A.No.128 of 2009 seeking for a direction to produce 17 documents. Most of the documents relate to the service records of the company having 8 years or 4 years. The petitioner management filed a counter statement resisting the production of records. In the counter statement, it was stated that the Company was initially a proprietary concern. Subsequently it became a private limited company on 1.4.2005. Being a corporate body, it is not necessary to produce the old records. Though the deponent of the affidavit claims that he was an ex- Proprietor, he also claims that the records were 29 years old. Further, it is claimed that the records are unwarranted and the documents are totally irrelevant. 5. The Labour Court after hearing the arguments of both sides by its order dated 20.1.2010 held that it is required on interest of justice to produce these documents before the court on 17.2.2010. It is against this preliminary order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner once again submitted that insofar as the documents for which productions were required are concerned, that was not relevant for the issue on hand and hence the Labour Court was wrong in directing the production of the said records. 7. However, this Court at this stage is not inclined to go into the relevancy of the document directed to be produced. The relevancy will be decided at the time of sifting the document for its probative value. Suffice to state that the management did not plead any privilege over the document nor they claimed any commercial interest being jeopardized by the production of the documents. On the contrary, admitting of such Writ Petition against the interim order will only further delay the industrial dispute, which is already 3 years old. Under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, an individual dispute has to be resolved by the Labour Court within a period of three months. Entertaining of such Writ Petition at the interlocutory stage is wholly unwarranted. 8. In this context, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and another reported in AIR 1984 SC 1462. Though the said case arose out of a public sector corporation, yet the observations made by the Supreme Court are relevant even to private sector. The following passage found in paragraph 2 may be usefully extracted below: "2. There appear to be three preliminary objections which have become quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication. One object is that there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ no industry, a second that there is no industrial dispute and the third that the workman is no workman. It is a pity that when the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc., should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter other times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court, wasting public time and money. We expect public sector corporations to be model employers and model litigatnts. We do not expect them to attempt to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag: workmen from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them. We hope that public sector corporation will hope that public sector corporation will henceforth refrain from raising needless objections, fighting needles litigations and adopting needless postures." 9. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ajr To 1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI. +1 CC to Mr.Jayaraman Associates, Advocate SR 17774 W.P.No.5242 of 2010 SJ(CO) PKS:30/03/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/