IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 27-04-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.39123 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.468 of 2004 in I.D.No.979 of 1999 , 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.468 of 2004, in I.D.No.979 of 1999 and to quash the same. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent Labour Court had erred in refusing to direct the employees Union, representing the second respondent workmen, to produce the relevant records in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27099 of 2003. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.27099 of 2003. Further, no prejudice would be caused if the employees Union, representing the workmen, is directed to produce the documents, as requested by the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management has been filing 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. 4. 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. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, and in view of the decision of this Court, in W.P.No.27099 of 2003, the impugned order passed by the first respondent Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent Labour Court, directing the said Court to decide all the issues arising for its decision, including the request of the petitioner Management to direct the employees Union to produce the relevant records, taking into consideration the order, dated 1.4.2004, made in W.P.No.27099 of 2003, as well as the issues arising for its decision in the industrial dispute, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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. + 1 CC To Mr.S.Vijayaragavan, Advocate SR NO.18089 Writ Petition No.39123 of 2004 TM {CO} TP/4.6.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/