Madras High Court
The Management Of vs Prakash S on 21 November, 2025
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 29.10.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
and WMP.Nos.38134,38548, 38550, 38139, 38141 and 38148 of 2025
The Management of
G.E. Vernova T & D India (P) Ltd.,
Formerly Known as G.E. T&D India Ltd.,
Plot No.46, SIPCOT,
Zuzuvadi,
Hosur- 635 126.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
...Petitioner in all WP Nos.
Vs
Prakash S ...Respondent in WP No.33980 of 2025
Rabiraj ...Respondent in WP No.33982 of 2025
C.Prabhakaran ...Respondent in WP No.34384 of 2025
P.Rooban Kumar ...Respondent in WP No.34387 of 2025
C.Chinnasamy ...Respondent in WP No.33986 of 2025
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
G.Vignesh ...Respondent in WP No.33988 of 2025
N.Devaraj ...Respondent in WP No.33991 of 2025
Prayer in WP No.33980 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.23/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.23 of 2022.
Prayer in WP No.33982 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.24/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.24 of 2022.
Prayer in WP No.34384 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.26/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.26 of 2022.
Prayer in WP No.34387 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.27/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.27 of 2022.
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
Prayer in WP No.33986 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.25/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.25 of 2022.
Prayer in WP No.33988 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.6/2024 in ID No.21/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.21 of 2022.
Prayer in WP No.33991 of 2025: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the Labour Court, Hosur in I.A.No.5/2024 in ID No.22/2022, quash its
order dated 05.08.2025 and further direct the Labour Court, Hosur to reopen and
permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence in ID No.22 of 2022.
For Petitioner (s) : Mr.Haroon Al.Rasheed
in all WP Nos. for M/s.Advit Law Chambers
For Respondent (s): Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
in all WP Nos.
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 05.08.2025, of the
Labour Court, Hosur in the interlocutory applications, filed to reopen and permit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
petitioner to adduce further evidence in I.D's.
2. As the issues raised in the writ petitions are common, the writ petitions are
disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in manufacture of highly
technical electrical equipment such as High Voltage Instrument Transformers,
AIS/GIS Switchgears, CTs, CVTs, EMVTs, Bushings, Capacitors etc. and allied
products. The respondents were engaged as technician trainees from 08.04.2019, and
their training period was periodically extended till 07.04.2022. The petitioner's case
is that due to pandemic induced downturn, the traineeships could not be continued,
and therefore the respondents were duly relieved with an ex-gratia amount exceeding
statutory retrenchment benefits. The respondent's challenged the said ex-gratia by
raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Hosur. After completion of initial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
evidence, the petitioner sought to adduce additional evidence and for the said purpose
filed the applications. The Labour Court however rejected the applications.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's application for reopening the evidence
and for filing additional documents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for
the aforesaid relief.
4. The respondents filed detail counter stating inter alia that the petitioner was
given ample opportunities by the Labour Court to adduce additional evidence, but the
petitioner failed to utilise the opportunities. The respondent stated that the petitioner
filed the said application with the sole object of protracting the proceedings. The
respondent further stated that the Labour Court cannot be faulted, since the affidavit
for reopening and adducing additional evidence was bereft of particulars. The
respondent submitted that the Labour Court had exercised its discretion in a sound
and reasonable manner and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
5. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The petitioner's application for reopening the evidence and adducing
additional evidence was rejected by the Labour Court on three grounds, that, the
adjudication passed by the Court revealed that the petitioner had not utilised earlier
opportunities provided to him for producing additional evidence, that the averments
stated in the petitioner's affidavit lacked details of witness and documents produced
by him, which would obviate the respondent from effectively contesting the petition
and that the petitioner had failed to aver how the proposed evidence was material and
necessary to decide the controversy between the parties.
7. From the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the ID was filed on
20.10.2022, and the petitioner entered appearance on 14.11.2022 and thereafter, the
respondent completed his side evidence on 14.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
examined his witness M.W.1, and later, on 30.05.2024, M.W1 was cross-examined.
Thereafter, the Labour Court adjourned the matter to 03.10.2024, for additional
evidence of the petitioner. On 03.10.2024, the petitioner did not summon his witness
and therefore the Labour Court adjourned the case to 17.10.2024. On 17.10.2024, the
petitioner filed adjournment petition, but the same was dismissed by the Labour
Court and the petitioner's side evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
the I.A on 24.10.2024, seeking to reopen the case for adducing additional evidence
and for marking the documents. The said facts clearly reveal that the petitioner was
given amply opportunity to adduce additional evidence. Despite the aforesaid
opportunities, the petitioner failed to utilise the same and therefore, the reasoning of
the Labour Court in this regard cannot be faulted.
8. Upon perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is found that
the petitioner has not given the particulars of the evidence proposed to be adduced by
him, and the relevancy of the same to the issues involved. Therefore, the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
Court's finding that the petitioner's affidavit was vague and bereft of the relevancy of
the said documents to the issue cannot be faulted.
9. Before this Court, for the first time the petitioner stated that it proposed to
examine its HR Manager and through him, wanted to file documents like the
Government training manual prescribed by the Government for various trades, hand
bills and notice issued by various companies regarding the training programs as that
of the petitioner company, details of NEEM schemes promoted by the Government
prescribing training period for trainees and few other notifications. The petitioner in
his writ affidavit has stated that, had the Labour Court, given him an opportunity to
specify the details, the petitioner would have certainly provided the same. The
petitioner has stated that it wanted to examine the retired Director of technical
institute, but since he was unable to accommodate the petitioner owing to his old age,
the petitioner proposed to examine its HR manager and through him, mark the
aforesaid documents. The petitioner has not whispered, as to when he obtained the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
documents. Further, the petitioner had examined the HR manager earlier, and hence
could have marked the documents through him. Since the documents are public
documents relating to Government training manual and Government schemes, apart
from the notifications of the Government, nothing prevented the petitioner from
producing them earlier. As already stated, the Labour Court had given sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner during the enquiry and before closure of evidence to
adduce additional evidence. In the affidavit in support of the petition for additional
evidence and in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, absolutely no explanation
is given for the omission to produce the documents earlier. Therefore, this Court is
constrained to view that the petition to re-open and file additional documents is only
an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the case, which cannot be permitted under the
guise of leading additional evidence.
10. There is no dispute on the legal proposition that the Labour Court has
jurisdiction to entertain an application for reopening and adducing additional
evidence, for doing complete justice to both the parties. However, this Court finds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
that the judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madras (by
Deputy General Manager) versus Third Additional Labour Court, Madras, and
another, reported in 1985 (2) LLN 787, relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not apply to the facts of the case. It is trite that, the interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution in interlocutory matters is limited to correcting
jurisdictional errors or patent illegality. It is to be noted that the discretionary power
to permit further evidence must be used sparingly, and that too to meet the ends of
justice. This Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and
that the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference.
For all the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions and
hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
dsn
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
N.MALA,J.
dsn
Order in W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
W.P.Nos.33980, 33982, 34384, 34387, 33986, 33988 and 33991 of 2025
Order Pronounced on 21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 03:35:07 pm )
