C.Duraisamy v. The Management of

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to and call for the case records of the Page2 of 4 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.

¶2The 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 cross-examination 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.

¶3Learned 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 cross-examination itself.

¶4When 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. Page3 of 4

¶5The petitions calling for the documents, though dismissed, the 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.

¶6It is pointed out by the Labour Court that the case is of the year 2015 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.

¶7Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (K.Surender, J) 01-06-2026 cs To The Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Page4 of 4 K.Surender, J cs

01.06.2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER and W.M.P.No.19544 of 2026 --- C.Duraisamy S/o. G.Chandrasekar, No. 1/35 1st Street, Chettiyar Agaram, Chennai-600 077 ..Petitioner Vs The Management of S.S.D.Oil Mills Company Ltd., Chennai-600 056. ..Respondent 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. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathiya Murthi