{"id":94217,"date":"2006-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-08T14:44:58","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T09:14:58","slug":"the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 10\/04\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR      \n\nWrit Appeal No.1946 of 1999 \n\nThe Sennampatty Milk Producers  \nCo-operative Society Ltd.,\nSennampatty  638 504.                   ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\nLabour Court,\nCoimbatore-641 018. \n\n2. T.Dharmalingam                       ... Respondents\n\n        Appeal  under  Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated\n24.08.1999 made by the learned single Judge in W.P.  No.11590 of 1991 .\n\n!For Appellant          :  Mr.Sanjay Mohan,\n                        for M\/s.Ramasubramaniam Associates.\n\n^For R-2                        :  Mr.D.Hariparanthaman\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P.  SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned
\nsingle Judge, dated 24.08.1999, in W.P.  No.11590 of 1991, in  and  by  which,
\nthe learned Judge confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed
\nthe Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the
\nlearned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The second  respondent,  viz.,  T.Dharmalingam,  was  employed  as
\nSecretary of the Sennampatty Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society Limited\/Writ
\npetitioner-appellant.  He was suspended for misconduct on 27.0 9.1983.  A show
\ncause  notice  was issued on 21.06.1984 alleging that he had misappropriated a
\nsum of Rs.1,429\/-.  The second  respondent  submitted  his  explanation.    An
\nenquiry  was conducted and pursuant to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the
\nsecond respondent was dismissed from service on 23.08.1984.  Aggrieved by  the
\nsame,  the  second  respondent  raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
\nCourt, Coimbatore, in I.D.No.73 of 1985.  Before the Labour Court, in view  of
\nthe  stand  taken  by  the  Workman,  the issue with regard to validity of the
\ndomestic enquiry was taken up as preliminary issue.  After  hearing  both  the
\nparties, the Labour Court reserved for orders.  Before order was pronounced by
\nthe  Labour  Court  on  the  preliminary  issue  regarding the validity of the
\ndomestic enquiry, an Application was filed by the petitioner\/Society to reopen
\nthe preliminary enquiry.    The  Labour  Court,  by  order  dated  18.09.1991,
\nreopened the enquiry.  The petitioner filed I.A.  No.258 of 1990 on 20.10.1990
\nseeking permission  of the court to file an additional counter statement.  The
\nsecond respondent filed counter in I.A.  No.258 of 1990  on  07.11.1990.    By
\norder  dated  28.1  1.1990, the Labour Court dismissed the Application in I.A.
\nNo.258 of 1990, holding that the petitioner having failed to  seek  permission
\nwhile  filing  counter, the same cannot be sought at a later stage by means of
\nan additional counter statement.  Thereafter, award was passed by  the  Labour
\nCourt  on  06.5.1991  holding  that  the  domestic  enquiry  conducted  by the
\npetitioner  against  the  second  respondent  was  vitiated  and  the   second
\nrespondent  was  ordered  to be reinstated with continuity of service and full
\nback wages.  Questioning the same, the Society filed the Writ Petition.    The
\nlearned  single  Judge,  by the impugned order dated 24.08.1999, after finding
\nthat the Management has not challenged the order in I.A.  No.258  of  1990  by
\nfiling  a separate writ petition and that no attempt has been made on the part
\nof the Management to file an application, seeking  permission  of  the  Labour
\ncourt  to  let in oral and documentary evidence; refused to interfere with the
\naward passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Writ Petition.  Questioning
\nthe same, the Society has filed the above Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Heard Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for  the  appellant\/Society
\nand Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for second respondent\/ Workman.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  only point for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether
\nthe Labour Court is justified in passing an award, ordering  reinstatement  of
\nthe 2nd respondent\/Workman.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Mr.Sanjay  Mohan,  learned  counsel for the petitioner vehemently
\ncontended that the learned Judge committed an error in holding that the  order
\npassed in  I.A.    No.258 of 1990 has not been challenged by way of a separate
\nwrit petition, when the order passed in the interim application is merged with
\nthe main award.  He also contended that when the Management filed  Application
\nfor letting in additional evidence, the Labour Court committed an error in not
\ngranting  the  same and that the learned single Judge also erred in dismissing
\nthe Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  On the other hand, Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel  for  the
\nsecond  respondent,  would submit that even though industrial dispute has been
\nraised by the workman as early as in 1985; the petitioner\/ Society  failed  to
\nseek  permission  for  leading  additional  evidence even while filing counter
\nstatement in the year 1990; hence, the Labour  Court  is  fully  justified  in
\ndismissing I.A.   No.258  of 1990, which was filed in 1990.  He also contended
\nthat in view of the factual finding that there  was  no  proper  enquiry,  the
\nLabour Court is fully justified in ordering reinstatement and that the learned
\nsingle Judge is perfectly right in confirming the same.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   We  have perused the materials and carefully considered the rival
\ncontentions.  It is not in dispute that as against the order of dismissal, the
\n2nd respondent\/workman raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.  No.73 of 1985 on the
\nfile of the Labour Court, Coimbatore.  Though a counter statement was filed in
\nI.D.  No.73 of 1985, admittedly, the Management did not seek for permission to
\nlead evidence in the event of the labour court coming to the  conclusion  that
\nthe domestic  enquiry  was  not  properly conducted.  A perusal of the counter
\naffidavit of the Society do not reveal anything except  some  bald  statements
\nand denial of the workman’s plea by the Management.  It is not in dispute that
\na  preliminary  issue  regarding validity of the domestic enquiry was heard by
\nthe Labour Court and the same was argued on 5.9.1990.    It  is  also  not  in
\ndispute  that  after  the  said issue was posted for orders, the Society filed
\nI.A.  No.233 of 1990 for re-opening the  preliminary  issue.    Even  in  that
\nApplication,  admittedly,  nothing  has  been  stated about permission to lead
\nfresh evidence.  Only on 19.10.1990, the Society filed another Application  in
\nI.A.  No.258 of 1990, seeking permission to file additional counter statement.
\nEven  in the affidavit fled in support of the above Application, no reason has
\nbeen stated except  the  bald  statement  that  “…..    Since  due  to  some
\nunavoidable  and  inadvertent  mistake,  some salient features relating to the
\npoint at issue were omitted in my counter statement, it has become  imperative
\nnecessity on my part to file the additional counter statement.  ” For the said
\nApplication,  the  workman filed counter statement, disputing the claim of the
\nManagement.  In the said counter, the workman  has  specifically  stated  that
\nI.A.  No.258 of 1990 amounts to a fresh application seeking permission to lead
\nfresh evidence.   It is also stated that since the workman has filed the claim
\nstatement on 19.2.1984 itself, the Management ought to have stated in the main
\ncounter statement that they may be permitted to lead fresh  evidence  in  case
\nthe  domestic enquiry is set aside by the labour court; and that having waited
\nfor nearly five years, the Management should not be allowed to file additional
\ncounter statement with the prayer to lead fresh evidence to prove the charges.
\nIt is further stated that their mistake cannot be  rectified  after  lapse  of
\nfive years that too when the case is reserved for award on preliminary issues.
\nBy  order  dated 28.11.1990, the Labour Court accepted the objection raised by
\nthe workman and dismissed I.A.  No.258 of 1990.  Admittedly, the  Society  has
\nnot challenged   the  same.    Finally,  the  Labour  Court,  by  order  dated
\n06.05.1991, accepted the case of the workman, allowed the I.D., and passed  an
\norder  for  reinstatement  of  the  workman  with  continuity  of  service and
\nbackwages.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In 2001 (5) SCC 433 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v.
\nLakshmidevamma), Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court<\/a>  has  considered  the
\nquestion  as  to  whether  it  is open for the management to seek the right of
\nleading  fresh  evidence  at  any  stage  including  at  a  stage  where   the
\nTribunal\/Labour  Court had concluded the proceedings and reserved its judgment
\non the main issue.    The  Constitution  Bench  considered  various  decisions
\nincluding Shambhu Nath  Goyal  v.    Bank  of  Baroda<\/a> ((1983) 4 SCC 491).  The
\nfollowing conclusion of the Supreme Court is  relevant  and  it  is  extracted
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” 16.    While  considering the decision in Shambhu Nath Goyal
\ncase we should bear in mind that the judgment of Varadarajan, J.  therein does
\nnot refer to the case of Cooper Engg.  However,  the  concurring  judgment  of
\nD.A.Desai, J.   specifically  considers  this  case.  By the judgment in Goyal
\ncase the management was given the right to  adduce  evidence  to  justify  its
\ndomestic enquiry only if it had reserved its right to do so in the application
\nmade  by  it  under  Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in the
\nobjection that the management had to file to the reference made under  Section
\n10  of  the Act, meaning thereby that the management had to exercise its right
\nof leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity and  not  at  any
\ntime thereafter during the proceedings before the Tribunal\/Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   Keeping  in  mind  the object of providing an opportunity to the
\nmanagement to adduce evidence before the Tribunal\/labour Court, we are of  the
\nopinion  that  the  directions issued by this court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case
\nneed not be varied, being just and fair.  There can be no complaint  from  the
\nmanagement  side  for  this  procedure  because  this  opportunity  of leading
\nevidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and not
\nas an admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry.  At the same  time,  it
\nis  also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice of
\nthe fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence,  hence,  they
\ncan keep  their  rebuttal  or  other  evidence  ready.    This  procedure also
\neliminates the likely delay in  permitting  the  management  to  make  belated
\napplication whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court\/Tribunal could get
\nprolonged.  In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case
\nis just and fair.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  There is one other reason why we should accept the procedure laid
\ndown by  this  Court  in Shambhu Nath Goyal case.  It is to be noted that this
\njudgment was delivered on 27.9.1983.  It has taken  note  of  almost  all  the
\nearlier  judgements  of  this  Court  and  has  laid  down  the  procedure for
\nexercising the right of leading evidence by the management which we have  held
\nis neither  oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Act.  This
\njudgment having held the field for  nearly  18  years,  in  our  opinion,  the
\ndoctrine of stare decisis requires us to approve the said judgment to see that
\na long-standing decision is not unsettled without a strong cause.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the law
\nlaid down by this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal v.  Bank  of  Baroda<\/a>
\nis the correct law on the point.  ”\n<\/p>\n
After holding so and finding that the employer did not seek permission to lead
\nevidence  until  after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry was
\nvitiated; and applying the aforesaid principles;  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court
\ndismissed  the  Appeal  filed  by  the  Management  viz., Karnataka State Road
\nTransport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  No doubt, learned counsel appearing  for  the  appellant  pressed
\ninto service  the  concurring  but  separate Judgment of Shivraj V.  Patil, J.
\n(as His Lordship then was).  In paragraph  No.45,  it  has  been  observed  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” 45.   It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules
\nof evidence are not applicable to the proceedings  before  the  Labour  Court\/
\nTribunal  but  essentially  the rules of natural justice are to be observed in
\nsuch proceedings.  Labour Courts\/Tribunals have the  power  to  call  for  any
\nevidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase demand  the  same  to  meet the ends of justice in a given situation.  We
\nreiterate that in  order  to  avoid  unnecessary  delay  and  multiplicity  of
\nproceedings,  the  management  has  to seek leave of the court\/tribunal in the
\nwritten statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action  in
\nthe alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions.  But this
\nshould   not   be   understood  as  placing  fetters  on  the  powers  of  the
\ncourt\/tribunal requiring or directing  parties  to  lead  additional  evidence
\nincluding  production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they
\nare concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just  and
\nnecessary in the interest of justice.  ”\n<\/p>\n
By  referring  the  same, it is pointed out that the petitioner, having sought
\nfor permission to lead evidence, the Labour Court ought to have  accepted  the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Mr.   Sanjay Mohan has also very much relied on a decision of the
\nSupreme Court reported in Divyash Pandit v.  NCCBM (2005 (2) SCC 684).    Para
\nNo.8 of the said Judgment is pressed into service, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” 8.    The  appellant  has challenged this decision of the High Court
\nbefore us.  We are of the view that the  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  2
\n.12.2002 as  clarified on 3.3.2003 does not need any interference.  It is true
\nno doubt that the respondent may not have made any prayer for (sic submitting)
\nadditional evidence in its written statement but, as held  by  this  Court  in
\nKarnataka SRTC v.  Laxmidevamma (2001 (5) SCC 433) this did not place a fetter
\non  the  powers  of  the  Court\/ Tribunal to require or permit parties to lead
\nadditional  evidence  including  production  of  document  at  any  stage   of
\nproceedings before  they  are  concluded.    Once the Labour Court came to the
\nfinding that the enquiry was non est, the facts of the case warranted that the
\nLabour Court should have given one opportunity to the respondent to  establish
\nthe charges before passing an award in favour of the workman.  ”\n<\/p>\n
                12.   Emphasising  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  above
\nreferred cases,  Mr.Sanjay  Mohan  argued  that  even  though  the  Management
\ninadvertently  failed  to  seek  permission  in the original counter, since it
\nfiled a  separate  petition,  seeking  permission  before  conclusion  of  the
\nproceedings,  the  Labour  Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to lead
\nfresh evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  It is true that in the event of the Labour Court\/Tribunal
\ncoming to the conclusion that the Domestic Enquiry is  defective,  it  is  but
\nproper to afford one more opportunity to the Management, provided such request
\nis made  at  the  earliest  point  of  time.   Such condition is to enable the
\nworkman to come prepared to rebut the proposed action of the management.   The
\nfollowing conclusion  in Neeta Kaplish v.  Labour Court (Vol.94<\/a> (1999) FJR 83)
\nis relevant,
\n                ”       In Bharat Forge Co.  Ltd.  v.  A.B.Zodge<\/a> (1996) 88 FJR
\n736, as also in United  Planters  Association  of  Southern  India  v.    K.G.
\nSangameswaran,<\/a>  (1997)  90  FJR 454, it was laid down that the Labour Court or
\nthe Tribunal can take fresh evidence on merits of the charge if  it  comes  to
\nthe  conclusion  that  the  domestic  enquiry  was  not  properly held and the
\nprinciples of natural justice were violated.\n<\/p>\n
        In view of the above, the legal position as emerges out is that in all
\ncases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry  has  been  found  to  be
\ndefective,  the  Tribunal  can  call  upon  the  management or the employer to
\njustify the action taken against the workman and to show  by  fresh  evidence,
\nthat the  termination  or  dismissal order was proper.  If the management does
\nnot lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity,  it  cannot  raise  any
\ngrouse   at  any  subsequent  stage  that  it  should  have  been  given  that
\nopportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances, would  be  justified  in
\npassing an  award  in  favour of the workman.  If, however, the opportunity is
\navailed of and the evidence is adduced by the management, the validity of  the
\naction  taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon on the basis of
\nsuch fresh evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
                14.  In the decision reported in  (1975)  2  SCC  661  (Cooper
\nEngineering Ltd.  v.    P.P.  Mundhe), the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/a> has held that
\nduty is cast on the  Labour  Court  to  inform  of  the  violation  and  given
\nopportunity  to  the  employer  to  adduce  evidence  before conclusion of the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  The legal position emerging from the above  decisions  is
\nthat  if  the  Domestic Enquiry is found to be defective, the employer must be
\ngiven an opportunity to lead evidence.  However, affording opportunity is  not
\nautomatic in  every  case.    In  the  case on hand, it is not in dispute that
\nindustrial dispute has been raised by the Workman even as early  as  in  1985.
\nThough  counter statement was filed in the year 199 0, admittedly, the Society
\nfailed to seek permission to lead additional evidence.  As  said  earlier,  in
\nthe  counter  affidavit of the Society, except some bald statements and denial
\nof the workman’s plea, no request was made to lead additional evidence.  It is
\nrelevant to note that even at  the  time  when  the  Labour  Court  heard  the
\npreliminary  issue  regarding  validity  of  the Domestic Enquiry and when the
\nmatter was argued in September, 1990, no such permission was sought for.  As a
\nmatter of fact, in order to reopen the issue relating to preliminary  enquiry,
\nthe Society filed I.A.  No.233 of 1990.  Even in that Application, admittedly,
\nno such  permission  was  sought for to lead fresh evidence.  Only in October,
\n1990, the Society filed I.A.  No.258  of  1990,  seeking  permission  to  file
\nadditional counter  statement.  Even in the affidavit filed in support of that
\nApplication, the Society has not adduced  sufficient  reasons  except  stating
\nthat  due  to  some  unavoidable  and  inadvertent  mistakes,  certain salient
\nfeatures relating to the point at issue were omitted in the counter affidavit,
\nhence, it had become necessary  on  their  part  to  file  additional  counter
\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   As  rightly pointed out by Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, even at
\nthat stage, the Society did not come  forward  with  a  request  for  adducing
\nadditional evidence.    Taking  note  of  lapse  of  five  years  and also the
\nobjection of the Workman, the Labour  Court,  on  going  through  the  factual
\ndetails  and  relevant  materials,  found that the objection of the Workman is
\nwell founded and dismissed I.A.  No.258 of 1990 filed by the Society.   Though
\nthe learned Judge observed that the Society ought to have challenged the order
\npassed by  the  Labour Court in I.A.  No.258 of 1990 by filing a separate writ
\npetition,  we  are  of  the  view  that  such  observation\/conclusion  is  not
\nacceptable, since even in the absence of a separate writ petition, inasmuch as
\nthe  order  passed  in the interim application merges with the main award, the
\nsame can be agitated in the writ petition filed against the final award of the
\nLabour Court.  Though we disagree with the view of the learned Judge that  the
\nSociety ought to have filed a separate writ petition against the order in I.A.
\nNo.258  of 1990, in view of our discussion, we find that there is no bona fide
\nin the claim of the Society.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  In the Constitution Bench decision of the  Supreme  Court
\nreported  in 2001 (5) SCC 433 (cited supra), Their Lordships upheld the dictum
\nlaid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal’s case (cited supra).  We consider it relevant
\nto extract the observation made in paragraph No.16 at page-18 of the  decision
\nreported in Shambhu Nath Goyal v.  Bank of Baroda<\/a> ,
\n                ” ..    the  rights  which  the  employer has in law to adduce
\nadditional evidence in a proceeding before  the  Labour  Court  or  Industrial
\nTribunal  either under S.10 or S.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning
\nthe legality of the order terminating the service must be availed  of  by  the<\/p>\n
employer by making a proper request at the time when it files its statement of
\nclaim  or  written statement or makes an application seeking either permission
\nto take certain action or seeking approval of the action taken by it.  ..”\n<\/p>\n
The said  conclusion  in  Shambhu  Nath  Goyal  case  was  considered  by  the
\nConstitution   Bench   in  Karnataka  State  Road  Transport  Corporation  vs.
\nSmt.Lakshmidevamma<\/a> [cited supra].  After referring to  all  the  earlier  case
\nlaws  on  this  subject, majority view of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench is as
\nfollows, in Para.29 at page 110:\n<\/p>\n
                ” For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the
\nlaw laid down by this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath  Goyal  V.    Bank  of
\nBaroda<\/a> [1984 (1) L.L.N.8) (vide supra) is the correct law on the point.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        We are  also  conscious of the view expressed by Shivraj V.  Patil, J.
\nin the said Constitution Bench Judgment with reference to the  powers  of  the
\nLabour  Court\/Tribunal  requiring  or directing the parties to lead additional
\nevidence including production of documents at any  stage  of  the  proceedings
\nbefore  they  are  concluded  if on facts and circumstances of the case, it is
\ndeemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.  It is clear that though
\nthe Labour court\/Tribunal has power to grant permission  at  anytime  to  lead
\nevidence  before  conclusion  of  the  proceedings,  it depends upon facts and
\ncircumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
                18.     In the case on hand, we have already referred  to  the
\nfact that the workman raised industrial dispute by filing I.D.  No.73 of 1985;
\nthat  the  Society  filed counter statement only after a period of five years,
\nie., in 1990; and that no request was made in the original  counter  affidavit
\nor  in  the  subsequent interlocutory application to lead additional evidence.
\nIn such circumstances, as observed  by  the  Hon’ble  Constitution  Bench,  in
\nKarnataka  State  Road Transport Corporation case, though the Labour court has
\npower to grant permission to lead additional evidence before completion of the
\nproceedings, we are of the view that the Management\/Society  has  not  adduced
\nsufficient  reasons  for  the delay and we are satisfied that the Labour Court
\nhas rightly exercised its discretion by dismissing the  Application  filed  by
\nthe Management.    Similar  view has been expressed by one of us (P.S., J.) in
\n2002 (2) L.L.N.  720 (Management of Easun Machine Tool Works vs.    P.O.)  and
\nthe  same is in consonance with the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   In  the  decision  reported  in  2003   (4)   LLN   1128
\n(Caterpillar (I) (P.) Ltd.    vs.   P.O., II Addl.  L.C.), a Division Bench of
\nthis Court, after considering the fact that the Management has not sought  for
\npermission  to  lead  evidence  in  the  written  statement but made only oral
\nrequest, has concluded as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” Admittedly, the appellant-company did not  seek  permission  of  the
\nLabour Court to lead evidence in the written statement filed before the Labour
\nCourt,  but  the case of the appellant-company is that it made an oral request
\nbefore the Court.  We are of the view, the decision of the  Supreme  Court  in
\nLakshmidevamma  case  would squarely apply to the facts of the case and having
\nfailed to make such a request in the written statement  filed  by  it,  it  is
\nfutile  on  the part of the appellant to contend that an oral request was made
\nand on the basis of the oral statement, the Labour Court should  have  granted
\nthe  opportunity  to  the management to lead further evidence and cover up the
\nshortcoming in the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
In the absence of proper explanation by  the  Management\/Society,  we  are  in
\nentire agreement with the conclusion of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   We  reiterate  the legal position that the Management is
\nentitled to lead evidence provided such request is made at the earliest  point
\nof  time and even if there is any delay, the same is to be permitted if proper
\nand sufficient reason is shown. In view of our conclusion  that  there  is  no
\nproper explanation or bona fide for such a long delay in seeking permission to
\nlead  fresh  evidence,  we  hold  that  the  Management\/Society  has  lost its
\nopportunity.  These aspects have been correctly considered by the Labour Court
\nas well as the learned single Judge and the claim of the Society was correctly
\nnegatived.  We also hold that even in the absence of separate  writ  petition,
\nquestioning  the order passed in the interlocutory application, the management
\nis free to urge the same in the Writ Petition filed against the final award of
\nthe Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  In these circumstances, we do not find any merit  in  the
\nWrit Appeal and the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore-641 018.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 10\/04\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR Writ Appeal No.1946 of 1999 The Sennampatty Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Sennampatty 638 504. … Appellant -Vs- […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3925,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\",\"name\":\"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006"},"wordCount":3925,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006","name":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T09:14:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sennampatty-milk-producers-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Sennampatty Milk Producers vs The Presiding Officer on 10 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}