IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 27-04-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.39120 of 2004 The Management Express Publications Madurai Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, B.N.Srivatsam, Express Estate, Mount Road, Madras-2. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai. 2.The Workmen Employed by Indian, Express (Madurai) Ltd., now called Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., Chennai-2, rep. by Express Group of Employees Welfare Union, through its General Secretary, S.Dharmalingam Reg.No.2268/93, No.26, Thiruvallurvar Koil Street, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in I.A.No.446 of 2004 in I.D.No.6 of 1998, dated 15.12.2004 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayaragavan For Respondents : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu (R2) O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 15.12.2004, made in I.A.No.446 of 2004, in I.D.No.6 of 1998 and to quash the same. 2. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent Labour Court had passed the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order revising its own order passed earlier, without having the jurisdiction to do so. By its earlier order the first respondent Labour Court had directed the employees Union representing the workmen to produce the original membership register, the resolution register and certain other documents to prove its representative capacity. 3. It has been stated that the order under challenge is directly contrary to the order of this Court, dated 1.4.2004, made in W.P.No.27099 of 2003. It has also been stated that the first respondent Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to review its own order, as held by this Court in Silk Cloth Producers' Association, Kumbakonam and State of Madras and others (1954 II L.L.J 410) and Senior Divisional Personnel Officer V. Presiding Officer (1978 I L.L.J 253). Further, no prejudice would be caused to the second respondent workman or to the employees Union representing them by the earlier direction issued by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A.No.446 of 2004. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent workman had submitted that the first respondent Labour Court had reviewed its earlier order, as it was a non-speaking order. Even though the impugned order of the first respondent Labour Court is a well-considered order, as it gives various reasons in respect of the conclusions arrived at by the first respondent Labour Court, the petitioner Management had filed various interlocutory applications only with the intention of delaying the proceedings in the industrial dispute pending on the file of the first respondent Labour Court. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, had stated that it may be appropriate for this Court to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent Labour Court and to remit the matter back to the first respondent Labour Court to decide, afresh, all the issues involved in the industrial dispute pending before it, within a specified time period, as directed by this Court. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, the impugned order passed by the first respondent Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back, directing the first respondent Labour Court to decide all the issues arising for its decision, including the issues raised in the industrial dispute, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the earlier order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, directing the employees Union, representing the respondent workmen, to produce the documents required to show the representative capacity of the employees Union to represent the workmen, is sustained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Writ Petition No.39120 of 2004 TM {CO} TP/4.6.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/