ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli made in I.A. No. 23 of 2003 in I.D. No. 105 of 2002 (Old I.D. No. 230 of 1987) dated 03.04.2003, the Management of Madura Coats Ltd., has filed the above writ petition.
2. Heard, Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner – Management and Mr. T.S. Raja Mohan, learned counsel for first respondent – workman.
3. It is seen that by order dated 11.07.1984 of the petitioner, the first respondent – workman was dismissed from service on the allegation of committing theft. Aggrieved against the same, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 230 of 1987 on the file of Labour Court, Madurai and by order dated 22.08.1988, the Labour Court, Madurai held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management was vitiated in accordance with Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management has let in oral and documentary evidence in support of the charges. Finally, an award was passed on 26.03.1990, holding that the charges were not proved and the workman was directed to be re-instated with back wages. Questioning the said award, the Management has filed W.P. No. 10687 of 1990 and the same also came to be dismissed on 23.12.1997. The Management filed Writ Appeal No. 274 of 1998 and by order dated 21.09.2001, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and remitted the matter back before the Labour Court, Madurai to reconsider the evidence on record. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed I.A. No. 23 of 2003, to let in additional evidence in the form of recalling and for further examination of several witnesses. The said application was resisted by the Management by filing a counter statement. By the order impugned dated 03.04.2003, the Labour Court allowed the interlocutory application and permitted the workman to lead additional evidence, hence, the writ petition.
4. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Division Bench order in W.A. No. 274 of 1998 dated 21.09.2001, enables the parties to adduce additional / fresh evidence in the form or oral and documentary?
5. The decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 274 of 1998 in the case of Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram v. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Madurai, etc., has been reported in 2002 (1) L.L.J. 313. Before the Division Bench, it was contended on behalf of the Management that the Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry is bad, committed an error in not considering the fresh evidence let in before it. It was further contended that in the light of the materials placed before it, the contrary finding rendered by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the workman that inasmuch as on appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court has rightly ordered, reinstatement with full service benefits and back wages to 50%, there is no ground for interference. With reference to the said contentions, the Division Bench considered the oral and documentary evidence let in before the Labour Court and the ultimate decision taken by it. After pointing out various error / infirmities with regard to appreciation of evidence, failure to consider certain relevant materials and consideration of certain materials which are not admissible, the Division Bench ultimately set aside the award of the Labour Court and remitted the matter to the Prl. Labour Court, Madurai for fresh disposal. The conclusion of the Division Bench in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 are relevant.
6. The learned counsel for the workman by pointing out the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, namely, “…..fresh disposal …..” would contend that the Labour Court is fully justified in permitting the workman to recall certain witnesses in order to lead additional evidence. In fact, the Division Bench felt that the Labour Court has committed a manifest error while considering the relevant materials placed before it, directed the Labour Court to consider all the materials / aspects afresh and dispose of the matter as such, as found in paragraph 13 of the Division Bench order. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not amount to mean that the Labour Court has to dispose of the matter by allowing the parties to lead additional evidence, for which purpose the Labour Court has allowed the interlocutory application is nothing but exceeding its jurisdiction. A perusal of para 13 of the order of Division Bench, it is nowhere specifically stated that the Labour Court has to dispose of the matter by allowing the parties to lead evidence. As rightly argued by Mr. Sanjay Mohan, in the light of the conclusion in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13, it is clear that the Division Bench has directed the Labour Court to consider those materials afresh and in accordance with law. Admittedly, the Division Bench has not accorded permission to adduce fresh / additional evidence both by way of oral and documents. In the absence of any such liberty or permission and in the light of reasoning of the Division Bench as referred to in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13, I am of the view that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the interlocutory application for recalling witnesses. As observed earlier, in the absence of specific permission or direction by the Division Bench, permitting either party to let in additional material, I am of the view that the Labour Court was bound only to assess the existing material. Further, it is well settled law that unless an order of remittal permits additional materials, the Labour Court would be bound by the material on record, which has to be reassessed. Though it is contended that the Management is not going to be prejudiced or affected and very well cross examine the witnesses, as said earlier, in the absence of specific permission or direction in the remittal order, parties are not permitted to adduce additional material.
In the light of what is stated above, the order impugned in this writ petition, namely, order of the second respondent dated 03.04.2003 made in I.A. No. 23 of 2003 in I.D. No. 230 of 1987 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is closed.
In the light of the fact that I.D., is of the year 1987 and in view of the specific direction of the Division Bench for early disposal, the Labour Court, Tirunelveli is directed to dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All other directions issued by the Division Bench shall stand.