w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


G. Krishnamoorthy v/s V. Sathyanarayan, The Management of Janani Cold Storage Systems Private Ltd.

    C.R.P. No. 2624 of 2004
    Decided On, 15 April 2014
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. KARUPPIAH
    For the Petitioner: D. Geetha, Advocate. For the Respondent: No appearance.


Judgment Text
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.10.2003 made in I.A.No.1 of 2002 in T.S.E.No.136 of 2001 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Chennai, being the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, Chennai.)

1. This revision petitioner/appellant filed this revision petition as against the order passed in I.A. No.1 of 2002 in T.S.E.No.136 of 2001.

2. This revision petitioner filed an appeal in T.S.E.No.136 of 2001 to set aside the oral order of termination dated 6.7.2001, passed by the Management of Janani Cold Storage Systems Private Limited and consequently reinstate the revision petitioner as Manager in the respondent/Management.

3. In the above said proceedings, the respondent has filed counter and during the pendency of the above said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2002 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, to drop all further proceedings in the above said case. In the above said affidavit, it is stated that the revision petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the revision petitioner was employee under the respondent and all the documents produced by the revision petitioner are irrelevant documents and therefore, prayed for dropping the above said proceedings.

4. The revision petitioner has filed a counter, in which it is stated that the revision petitioner has filed an appeal and in the above said appeal, the revision petitioner has filed proof affidavit for examination in chief and also marked documents and the case was posted for cross examination. It is also averred in the counter that the respondent, without cross examining the revision petitioner, prolonged the proceedings by denying the contention of the respondent that there is no documentary evidence to prove the contention of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has further stated in the counter that already several documents were marked to prove the contention, inspite of it, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Appellate authoirty under Shop and Establishment Act, 1947, allowed the above said interim application filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. The Appellate Authority, accepted the contention of the respondent herein and allowed the application and dismissed the main appeal itself. Aggrieved the same, this revision petition filed by the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Inspite of notice duly served on the respondent and his name being printed in the cause list, he has not appeared in person or through counsel.
6. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed T.S.E.No.136 of 2001, challenging the oral order of termination passed by the respondent on 6.7.2001. In the above said proceedings, the present respondent also filed counter and the same was pending for disposal. It is also revealed that before the above said authority, on the side of the revision petitioner, proof affidavit for chief examination was filed and several documents were also marked to prove his case and the case was posted for cross examination for several hearings. Without cross examining the above said witness, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2002, to dismiss the main appeal in the preliminary stage on the ground that no documentary evidence produced by the revision petitioner. The Appellate Authority accepted the contention and allowed the application.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has produced several documents including notice issued by the respondent; paper publication etc., and also adduced oral evidence. Therefore, without considering the above said documents and oral evidence, the appellate authority passed the order without giving opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence, and also not discussed about the documents and oral evidence adduced by revision petitioner side, allow the application and dismissed the appeal at the preliminary stage. Therefore, the above said order is illegal and also perverse as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Further, the respondent also not appeared before this court initiate proceeding inspite of notice duly served. Therefore, the order passed in the application in I.A.No.1 of 2002 is liable to be dismissed and the revision petition is to be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
allowed. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2002 in T.S.E.No.136 of 2001, dated 28.10.2003 by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, is set aside and the above said I.A. is dismissed. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour is directed to proceed with the case and after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence and then dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.
O R