2026:MHC:1187 W.A.No.751 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER W.A.No.751 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.7712 of 2026 P.Bojarajan S/o.Padmanaban ... Appellant vs. 1. P.Subramanian 2. The Management of Bojarajan International 172/1, 10th Cross Street Jai Nagar Extension Near Vidhya Vikashini Matriculation School Kangeyam Road, Tiruppur. … Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 10.10.2025 made in W.P.No.2864 of 2021. For Appellant : Mr.C.Harish ***** Page Nos.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.751 of 2026 J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 10.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.2864 of 2021. 2. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The appellant is the Managing Director of the second respondent / the Management of Bojarajan International. The first respondent workman had filed a claim petition in C.P.No.129 of 2012 seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,631/- with interest. 3. During the course of adjudication of the claim petition, an interlocutory application came to be filed seeking permission to produce additional documents. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent / workman filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court. 4. The writ Court considered the issues by examining the records and additional documents produced by the first respondent workman. The writ Court, found that the first respondent workman is entitled to establish the genuineness and validity of the additional documents filed before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ Court, allowed the writ petition and Page Nos.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.751 of 2026 directed the Labour Court to consider the additional documents produced by the first respondent, afford due opportunity to all parties and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and a timeline of three months was also fixed for disposal of the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that additional documents filed by the first respondent workman are forged documents and that the genuineness of such documents can be tested only during the course of trial. He would submit that forming even a prima facie opinion about the documents is unnecessary and therefore, the writ Court directed the Labour Court to test the genuineness of additional documents filed by the first respondent workman. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the writ Court and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 24.03.2026 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order mk Page Nos.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.751 of 2026 S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and K. SURENDER, J., mk W.A.No.751 of 2026 24.03.2026 Page Nos.4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis