(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance Writ of Certitorari to call for the records of the labour court, kancheepuram in I.A.Nos.16/2026 and 17/2026 in I.D.No.251 of 2019, quash its order dated 30.07.2026.)

1. The petitioner/Management has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, in I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2026 in I.D. No. 251 of 2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the instance of the respondent Union, an Industrial Dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kancheepuram, by G.O. No. 483 dated 19.08.2019 and was taken on file as I.D. No. 251 of 2019. The dispute relates to the claim of 32 employees working as Team Leaders that they are ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both sides adduced evidence, and the matter was thereafter reserved for judgment. Subsequently, the respondent Union was permitted to reopen its evidence, recall WW1, and mark additional documents. Thereafter, on 24.06.2026, the Labour Court suo motu reopened the matter for clarification and called upon the respondent Union to furnish certain particulars and documents. After the respondent Union filed further documents, it was again permitted to reopen its evidence and recall WW1.

3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner/Management filed I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2026 seeking to reopen its evidence and recall MW2 for the purpose of marking additional documents. These applications were opposed by the respondent Union on the grounds that the documents were already available with the Management and that the applications were intended to delay the proceedings. By an order dated 30.07.2026, the Labour Court dismissed the said applications, Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. The contention of the petitioner/Management is that it was not allowed an opportunity to rebut the evidence adduced after the reopening of the case. The Management states that although certain documents were available with them and an attempt was made to confront the witness during the trial, they could not be brought on record due to the witness denying knowledge of the documents.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the employees submits that the Management cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae in its case by filing documents that were already available with them during the course of the trial. The counsel argues that the Labour Court rightly dismissed the application because the documents, which cover the period from 2014 to 2024, were not produced at the appropriate time. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and Others, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. The core issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner/Management should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence under the facts and circumstances of the present case. The entire dispute revolves around whether the employees concerned fall within the definition of "workmen." While the employees claim that they are workmen, the Management contends that, having regard to the nature of their duties, their roles are managerial in nature and they are not workmen.

8. Admittedly, the documents that the Management now seeks to introduce relate to the period from 2014 to 2024. Although these documents were not brought on record earlier, since the main issue involves determining whether the employees are workmen or not, the Court is duty-bound to examine records that assist in properly adjudicating the dispute. In the present case, when the respondent Union was permitted to produce further evidence after the reopening of the case, the Management cannot be denied a corresponding opportunity of rebuttal.

9. Keeping in view the facts of the case, which was instituted in the year 2019, the Management is granted one final opportunity to adduce evidence. This evidence sought to be adduced shall pertain strictly to the question of whether the employees concerned are workmen or not.

10. The Management’s witness (only one) shall appear before the Labour Court on 14.08.2026 along with documents, inform the Labour Court regarding the order passed by this Court, and file a memo to that effect. On 14.08.2026, the Labour Court shall fix a date for the Management to adduce evidence, and the Management shall conclude its evidence on that specified date. The counsel for the employees shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness. It is made clear that the matter may be adjourned to the next date only for reasons beyond the control of the Labour Court and for reason to be recorded in writing. Under no circumstance shall the Management be granted any further opportunity other than the date fixed by the Labour Court for adducing evidence. The Management shall pay cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai before the day fixed for adducing evidence.

11. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.