logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7252 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WA No. 2225 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. MANOHARAN
Parties : The Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) Board of Directors and Management of Jai Balaji Industries Limited & Others Versus Amit Kumar Upadhyay & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: R.D. Ashok Kumar for K.V. Shanmuganathan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, In-Person, R2, R.K. Sekina Reshma, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 06-10-2026
Head Note :-
Letters Patent - Clause 15 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.24840 of 2021 on the file of this Court.)Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

Amit Kumar Upadhyay – first respondent, appointed as Senior Manager, Marketing, in the appellant company, namely, Jai Balaji Industries Limited, was alleged to have been terminated from service without proper notice. Hence, he initiated appeal proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act,1947, in TNSE-1/8/2014. After prolonged inquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour closed the examination of witnesses on the side of the Management and proceeded further to the next stage. The Management filed an interlocutory application to adduce additional evidence, which was allowed by the authority. However, the witness could not be present. Hence, the authority adjourned the matter for further proceedings. Being aggrieved, the Management took out I.A.No.1/IA2/2021 to allow the application to reopen the evidence. Taking note of the fact that the witness was not able to travel from Calcutta to Chennai due to Covid 2019 pandemic restrictions, the authority allowed the application. Aggrieved, the employee filed W.P.No.24840 of 2021 to quash the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, reopening the appeal petition.

2. The learned single Judge, on perusing the impugned order, allowed the Writ Petition, observing that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, where the authority had not considered any of the defences, which were raised by the writ petitioner. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged before this Division Bench.

3. After notice to the respondent employee, the matter is taken up for consideration today.

4. The respondent employee, who appeared through video conference, submitted that the interlocutory application filed for reopening the appeal was not supported by an affidavit sworn by the Management, but by the witness himself and, therefore, the application ought not to have been allowed by the authority. He would further submit that the learned single Judge has rightly considered that lacuna and infirmity and allowed the Writ Petition and hence there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

5. Counsel appearing for the appellant Management submitted that I.A.No.1/IA2/2021 was filed by the Management to reopen and adduce evidence by examining R.W.2. In support of the petition to reopen, an affidavit was filed by one Indranil Biswas, who had also happened to be the witness to be examined as R.W.2. The said Indranil Biswas is the Assistant General Manager working in the appellant Management. Therefore, the affidavit filed was in conformity with the law and procedure. The supporting affidavit filed by the witness cannot be considered as an imperfect affidavit or an affidavit sworn by an incompetent person. As for the merits on facts, counsel submitted that the sufficient reason for not examining the witness on the day was stated in the affidavit and the said reason was that the intervention of Covid 2019 travel restrictions restrained the witness to travel from Calcutta to Chennai to give evidence on the date fixed for hearing.

6. Considering the rival submissions, we find that the dispute between the Management and the employee, which commenced in the year 2014, has not come to its logical end even after 12 years. Records indicate that initial delay in initiating the appeal was due to the lapse of the employee. Thereafter, though the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour commenced the appeal proceedings, intervention of Covid 2019 pandemic caused some delay. The right of the Management to adduce additional evidence cannot be deprived when there is sufficient reason for not adducing the evidence at the appropriate time. The defence taken by the employee is unsustainable, since the application is filed by the Management and only the supporting affidavit is filed by the Management, which only shows that the Management, through its witness, who is none other than the Assistant General Manager in the company and conversant with the records and facts, needs to be examined. While holding so, we are also conscious of the fact that there should not be unnecessary delay in the proceedings.

7. Therefore, we allow the Writ Appeal, on condition that the appellant Management should examine the witness-R.W.2 on the next hearing date. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who is the second respondent herein, shall fix the hearing date between 21.10.2026 and 23.10.2026. On the date of hearing, the witness should be present and subject himself to cross-examination also. Parties should be intimated well in advance about the hearing date so as to enable them to participate in the proceedings. If the appellant fails to produce the witness on the date of hearing, there shall be no further indulgence and the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour shall proceed with the evidence available on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.17035 of 2025 is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal