W.P.No.32859 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.02.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.32859 of 2012 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 Cooper Bussman India Pvt. Ltd., No.2, E.V.R. Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry – 605 111. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (II Additional District and Sessions Court), Puducherry. 2. P.Sudhakar 3. Mary Alice Nirmal Suganthi 4. A.Josephine Mary 5. MK.Manimegalai 6. S.Mageswari 7. R.Seetha 8. K.Punitha 9. E.Kumaravel 10. R.Rajalakshmi 11. A.Sivagami 12. S.Nandgopal 13. J.Fathima 14. L.Muthulakshmi 15. P.Valli 16. P.Ulaganayagi 17. N.Govindammal 18. P.Sumathi Page No.1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 19. R.Meena 20. A.Ratna 21. M.Murugan 22. P.Vijayalakshmi 23. G.Vijayalalitha 24. G.Mala 25. D.Kumaravel 26. T.Senthilkumar 27. R.Ayyappan 28. S.Vijayakumar 29. V.Kuppusamy 30. S.Kumar 31. B.Lakshmi 32. B.Kadjabady 33. R.Natarajan 34. M.Rajendrian 35. S.Gunasekaran 36. D.Sivaraj 37. D.Ravi 38. R.Kumar 39. E.Anitha 40. P.Mageshwari 41. S.Ramesh 42. M.Balamurugan 43. R.Moorthy 44. N.Alavandar 45. S.Sakthivel 46. K.Shivashsnkari 47. J.Narayanan 48. A.Sheela 49. M.Padma 50. M.Sivakumar 51. S.Ayanar 52. M.Uthirakaramoorthi 53. S.Leela 54. M.Rajeswari 55. P.Tamilselvi 56. A.Sudha 57. T.Lingammal Page No.2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 58. D.Rajeshkumar 59. R.Muthukumaran 60. E.Krishnamurthy 61. K.Narayanasamy 62. K.Seeta 63. T.Subhashini 64. Karthikeyan 65. V.Dakshinamurthy 66. J.Jayasri 67. A.Natarajan 68. S.Peter 69. Selvakumar 70. Nirmala 71. Kalaivani 72. K.Ramesh 73. Sathya 74. Renuga 75. Senthilkumar 76. R.Kirushnaraj 77. A.Rajiv Gandhi 78. Babu 79. A.Periyanayagam 80. V.Gomedhagan 81. MM.Sivakumar 82. Sarasu 83. Sangeetha 84. S.Sakthivel 85. Manibalan 86. M.Ananthi 87. P.Venmathy 88. P.Ashokkumar 89. Antony Charles 90. D.Malathi 91. B.Ramamoorthi 92. E.Saravanan 93. A.Silambarasan 94. A.Suresh 95. P.Deepa 96. E.Jayanthi Page No.3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 97. T.Kumaresan 98. A.Venkatesan 99. M.Vijayakumar 100. R.Ganeshkumar 101. J.Senthilmurugan 102. T.Shyamsundar 103. D.Bharathiraja 104. E.Rishikumar 105. Y.Victor John 106. A.Arumugam 107. N.Rajesh 108. J.Elumalai 109. S.Vassantha Kumar 110. S.Archunan 111. V.Sanjeevi 112. V.Manikam 113. S.Danasekaran 114. P.Geetha 115. E.Raja 116. P.Rajiv Gandhi 117. R.Ravi 118. N.Thirumal 119. R.Kanaldoss 120. M.Rajendiran 121. P.Manikandan 122. N.Dakshina Moorthy 123. A.Selvam 124. K.Karthikeyan 125. R.Venkadakrishnan 126. N.Sarala 127. C.Murugaveni 128. S.Vengadesan 129. S.Parthipan 130. V.Muruyaiyan 131. A.Suresh ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash Page No.4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 the order dated 29.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.93 of 2012 in C.P.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II Additional District & Sessions Court), Puducherry. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Venkatesh Kumar for M/s. Gupta and Ravi For Respondents : R1 – Court Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, for R2 to 131 ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 29.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.93 of 2012 in C.P.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent/Labour Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of Electric fuse. The terms and conditions of service of the workmen employed in the petitioner factory at Puducherry is governed by periodical settlements entered into between the petitioner and the Union, representing the Workmen. Originally, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was signed on 23.01.2008 between the petitioner and Cooper busman Workers Union and the said settlement was in force for a period of three years, from 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2010 Page No.5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 and after expiry of the said settlement, another settlement was entered into between the parties. The Settlements entered into between the petitioner and the unions exhaustively prescribes the salary and other allowances payable to the Workmen, the benefits which they are entitled to and the work norms which they have to fulfill. Whileso, alleging that they were made to work for more than eight hours in a day and 48 hours in a week without payment of overtime wages, the respondents 2 to 131 (hereinafter referred to as 'Workmen') filed a computation petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in C.P.No.8 of 2011 claiming a sum of Rs.1,06,34,470/-, in which the 2nd respondent/ workman examined himself as PW1, as a common witness and also sought to mark three documents. On behalf of the Petitioner- management, the 2nd respondent/workman was also cross examined. After cross examination, the workmen filed an application in IA.No.93 of 2012 to summon the employer, namely the Managing Director or any other Manager of the petitioner management for the purpose of examination by the workmen so as to enable to get proper adjudication. The Labour Court, vide order dated 29.11.2012, directed the petitioner establishment to produce any of the representative of the petitioner management to give evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ petition has been filed. Page No.6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is for the workmen to establish the fact that there was an pre-existing right which was not paid by the petitioner management. If such a plea was established before the Labour Court, the Labour Court may pass appropriate orders in favour of the workmen. In the present case already the 2nd respondent/workman examined himself as a common witness (PW1) and he was also cross examined on the side of the petitioner Management. Thereafter the present I.A. has been filed compelling the petitioner management to give evidence, in which the present impugned order came to be passed, which is not sustainable as the Labour Court cannot force the management to give evidence. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 131/workmen submitted that the workmen do not possess any document and all those documents are available only with petitioner management with regard to their entitlement. Thereby, the workmen filed an application for summoning the Managing Director or any other competent witness of the petitioner management before the Labour Court to let in evidence, which was rightly appreciated by the Page No.7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 Labour Court and the same was allowed in part, vide impugned order and the same cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The respondents 2 to 131/workmen herein filed a computation petition under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in which the 2nd respondent examined himself as PW1 (common witness) and after the Workmen evidence is over, the petitioner Management completed the cross examination of the 2nd respondent/workman. Thereafter, the workmen filed an application in I.A.No.93 of 2012 solely for the purpose of summoning the Managing Director/Manager of the petitioner management to let in evidence and to cross examine on behalf of the workmen in order to prove their claim. 7. In a claim petition, the burden of proof lies on the workmen to prove their claim by letting proper oral and documentary evidence and they cannot compel the Management to let in evidence in favour of their Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 claim. It is the discretion of the Management either to let in evidence, either oral or documentary and they cannot be compelled to do so. Such a plea taken by the workmen is unsustainable and the Trial court, without considering theses aspects in proper perspective and without any detailed discussion, has passed the present impugned single line order directing the petitioner management to give evidence which is wholly unsustainable. 8. In view of the above, the order of the 1st respondent dated 29.11.2012 made in I.A.No.93 of 2012 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to decide the main computation petition in C.P.No.8 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law based on the materials available on record and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the workmen herein. 9. With the above observations and directions, this Writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Page No.9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 19.02.2025 skt Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (II Additional District and Sessions Court), Puducherry. M.DHANDAPANI, J. skt Page No.10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32859 of 2012 W.P.No.32859 of 2012 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 19.02.2025 Page No.11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis