E.I.D. Parry(India) Ltd., v. The Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17194 and 17195 of 2019 W.P.(MD)Nos.20555 of 2019: E.I.D Parry (India) Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Pettavaithalai, Tiruchirappalli. ... Petitioner vs. The Secretary, EID Parry Sugar Factory, (Pettavaithalai) Employees Union (AITUC), No.2A, Periyamilagu Parai, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019 in I.D.No.19 of 2012 and to quash its order, dated 28.08.2019. W.P.(MD)Nos.20556 of 2019: E.I.D Parry (India) Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Pettavaithalai, Tiruchirappalli. ... Petitioner vs. The Secretary, EID Parry Surar Factory, (Pettavaithalai) Employees Union (AITUC), No.2A, Periyamilagu Parai, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, in Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2019 in I.D.No.19 of 2012 and to quash its order, dated 28.08.2019. In both cases: For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co. For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Vijay Nivas ***** COMMON ORDER The petitioner namely E.I.D Parry (India) Limited had filed an Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2019, seeking to reopen the main petition filed in I.D.No.19 of 2012 in order to adduce further evidence.

2.The Labour Court had declined the same for the reason that the deponent of the affidavit is not a party in the main petition. Moreover, the petitioner was granted several opportunities to adduce evidences and file documents. The arguments of both the sides were already over. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that in order to prolong the case, the above said petition was filed. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the Pettavaithalai Employees Union was already closed and there were several workmen who were transferred from one place to another place. The petitioner wants to adduce evidence to this effect. The Labour Court declined to entertain this plea and has stated that the subsequent events cannot be entertained.

¶3The Labour Court further held that the petitioner had filed another Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2019, to receive the documents and the same was also dismissed, against which W.P.(MD)No.20555 of 2019, is filed. Challenging the both the orders passed by the Labour Court in Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2019, the present writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.20555 of 2019 and in W.P.(MD)No.20556 of 2019 are filed.

¶4This Court is of the considered opinion that opportunity should be granted to the contesting parties, if the same is denied then it will be violative of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the factory is having more than 190 workmen and several deputation orders were passed in the interest of the party as well as the factory. More so, when the factory was closed, the petitioner should be granted opportunity to adduce the evidence. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed. The Labour Court is directed to reopen the I.D.No.19 of 2012, also permit the petitioner to submit the evidences and grant opportunity to the petitioner. The Labour Court shall complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not take further adjournments or further time and prolong the litigation.

¶5With the above said observation, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

24.03.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg

24.03.2023