IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-10-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P.No.25565 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2008 The Management of Greaves Cotton Limited Light Engines Unit-II No.72, Sipcot Industrial Complex Ranipet 632 403 rep.by its General Manager ... Petitioner vs 1. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Chennai 2. The Workmen of Greaves Cotton Limited through Ranipet Greaves Employees Union rep.by its General Secretary (Reg.No.624/NAT) No.6/343, BHEL Anna Nagar, Seekarajapuram Ranipet 632 515 ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with M.A.No.73 of 2008 found in A Diary concerned in I.D.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent, i.e., Industrial Tribunal at Chennai and to quash the interim order dated 22.10.2008 made therein. For petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates For respondent 2 : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The writ petition has been filed by the management of Greaves Cotton Limited, which is the opposite party in I.D.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with M.A.No.73 of 2008 found in A Diary concerned in I.D.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent, i.e., Industrial Tribunal at Chennai and to quash the interim order dated 22.10.2008 made therein. 2. The second respondent Union filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.No.20 of 2008 in respect of their charter of demands referred to for adjudication. The petitioner herein filed their counter statement. Both the parties examined their witnesses and marked several documents. The trial came to an end on 10.10.2008 and the matter was adjourned to 15.10.2008 for arguments. 3. On 13.10.2008, the petitioner Management filed two applications, viz., M.A.No.72 of 2008 to receive a copy of the salary slip of the employees and M.A.No.73 of 2008 to issue summons to M/s.Brakes India Limited to produce 18(1) Settlement dated 01.10.2005. According to the petitioner, the second respondent Union stated no objection to these two applications. On 22.10.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the application M.A.No.73 of 2008 aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition has been filed by the Management. This Court on 23.10.2008 admitted the writ petition and granted an interim direction directing the Tribunal to keep all further proceedings in abeyance. 4. I have heard Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management and Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent Union. I have gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition relates to wage dispute. The petitioner Management expected the second respondent Union to produce 18(1) Settlement dated 01.10.2005, entered into between M/s.Brakes India Limited and its workmen. Since they did not produce the same the petitioner Management had to file the application No.M.A.No.73/2008 to issue summons to M/s.Brakes India Limited to produce the 18(1) Settlement dated 01.10.2005. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management the factory belongs to M/s.Brakes India Limited, which is also situated in the same region where the factory of the petitioner Management is also situated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said 18(1) Settlement dated 01.10.2005 is vital to prove the paying standard of the petitioner management in comparison to other industries in the same region on the basis of "region cum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ industries basis". Pointing out Rule No.39 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules 1958, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in taking out this application could not be put against the petitioner as the Tribunal may call for the documents at any stage. The learned counsel further added that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in dismissing the M.A.No.73 of 2008 especially when the second respondent Union did not file any counter and in fact informed no objection to the application. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court reported in 2008(2) L.L.J. 328 (MAD) (Management, HH256, Nedumpirai Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another) 6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent Union questioned the very maintainability of this writ petition, which has been filed against an interlocutory application rejected by the Tribunal. 7. According to the learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, this Court should refrain from interfering with the orders of the Tribunal, particularly, passed at an interlocutory stage. Moreover, according to him, no writ petition can be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India intervening in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal at an interlocutory stage. In support of his submission, the learned Senior counsel for the second respondent Union relied on the decisions reported in (1996)3 SCC 206 (National Council for Cement and Building Materials vs. State of Haryana and others) and 2008(4) C.T.C. 465 (I.T.C. Ltd. Vs Industrial Tribunal and 22 others). 8. The learned Senior counsel further denied that the second respondent Union informed no objection to those two applications, particularly the application No.73 of 2008, wherein the petitioner- Management sought for issuance of summons to M/s.Brakes India Limited. He further drew my attention to the submission contained in the affidavit filed in support of M.A.No.73 of 2008 and submits that no proper and acceptable reasons have been given by the petitioner- Management asking for the document from M/s. Brakes India Limited, viz., 18(1) Settlement dated 01.10.2005, especially when the matter was posted for arguments on 15.10.2008. 9. The learned Senior counsel further elaborated about Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules 1958 and would submit that the Tribunal may call for and accept any evidence at any stage which is in equity and good conscience as it thinks fit. According to the learned Senior counsel when an application is filed by the petitioner Management to send for documents, that too, after the trial is over and the matter is posted for argument, it is not automatic and the applicant has to come out with special and valid reasons and in the absence of the same, the Tribunal has correctly dismissed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application, M.A.No.73 of 2008. 10. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 11. After hearing the arguments and going through the records, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the second respondent Union. Admittedly, what is challenged in this writ petition is an order passed in an interlocutory application dt.22.01.2008 by the Tribunal in M.A.No.73 of 2008 which has been filed after the trial was completed and I.D. was posted for arguments. 12. I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior counsel that this court shall refuse to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal at an interlocutory stage. Though the facts in the judgment reported in 1996(3) SCC 206 (cited supra) are different from the facts of the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it very clear that High Court should refuse to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal at an interlocutory stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that decision referred to various decisions of Apex Court and one such decision is D.P. Maheswari Vs Delhi Administration reported in 1983 (4) SCC 2 L.L.J. 425 (SC) wherein it was observed that all the issues whether preliminary or otherwise should be taken together so as to rule out the possibility of any litigation at an interlocutory stage. 13. In 2008(4) C.T.C. 465 (cited supra), a Division Bench of this court held, after referring to the Apex court judgment in Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs P.P. Mundhe, A.I.R. 1975 SC 1900 and in D.P.Maheswari Vs Delhi Administration (cited supra) that interference by the courts on a preliminary point when the point on which the interference is sought for can be challenged after the final award is passed was never encouraged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interest of expediting quick disposal of cases by the Industrial Tribunal. 14. In 2008(2) L.L.J. (Mad) (cited supra), a learned Judge of this court has held that in order to facilitate both parties to get relief normally no court would entertain writ petition against the order passed in a preliminary issue, however in view of the peculiar factual circumstances and in exceptional cases, the interim order passed by the Tribunal can also be challenged to shorten the litigation to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings. 15. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved when their application to send for the copy of the 18(1) Settlement dt.01.10.2005, entered into between M/s.Breaks India Limited, Sholingur and its workmen, was wrongly dismissed by the tribunal. If that being so, it is open to the writ petitioner to challenge the same along with the final order of the Tribunal that would be passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ if it goes against them. Filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy as it will lead to unnecessary delay and prolonging the matter which is, in my view is not justified. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of this court reported in 2004(2) L.L.J. 328 (Mad) (cited supra) to submit that interim orders passed by the Tribunal can also be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the above said judgment is not an authority to conclude that Article 226 could be invoked in all the cases of rejection of interlocutory application filed before the Tribunal. The learned Judge has made it very clear that the normal rule is no court would entertain a writ petition against the order passed in a preliminary issue and only in exceptional cases, interim order passed by the Tribunal could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no controversy with regard to the above settled principle of law. To apply this judgment, the writ petitioner should establish that the factual circumstances of the present case are so exceptional warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any such exceptional circumstances in this case and therefore the above said judgment will not help the petitioner. 17. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 filed for interim direction is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vjz/vaan To: The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. 1 CC To Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, Advocate, SR NO.60207 1 CC To Mr.D.Anbanrasu, Advocate, SR NO.60092 W.P.No.25565 of 2008 vm(co) pmk/4.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/