Madras High Court
P.Krishnasamy vs Htl Limited (Formerly Hindustan ... on 21 April, 2010
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.(PD) No.4135 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 P.Krishnasamy .. Petitioner. Versus HTL Limited (Formerly Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd.) Rep. By its Senior Manager, (Personnel, Administration and Industrial Relatins) GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. .. Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order and decretal order, dated 19.11.2009, passed in I.A.No.20433 of 2009, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007, by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan For Respondent: Mr.Sanjay Mohan, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Ramasubramanian Associates O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 19.11.2009, made in I.A.No.20433 of 2009, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree to declare that the `Retirement Notice No.REF.C.1658, dated 30.3.2007, issued by the respondent management, as illegal, arbitrary and void and for a consequential order of injunction, restraining the respondent management from, in any way, altering or interfering with the service conditions of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.20433 of 2009, to permit him to reopen his evidence to examine three witnesses, who were members of the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Union, with regard to the benefits enjoyed by the employees, as per the settlement concluded, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Government circular enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years.
4. By an order, dated 19.11.2009, the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.20433 of 2009. The learned Judge had stated that a proof affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff had been filed, on 11.12.2007, and certain documents had also been marked as exhibits. On 22.7.2008, the plaintiff had stated that he had no other witnesses to be examined. Thereafter, the suit had been listed for the defendants evidence, on 29.7.2008, when certain witnesses had been examined. On 29.10.2009, evidence in the suit had been closed and it had been listed for arguments, on 2.11.2009. At that stage the petitioner had filed the interlocutory application to reopen his side evidence and to examine three witnesses, who were the members of the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Union to prove that the retirement age had been increased to 60 years. In such circumstances, the trial Court had found that the request of the petitioner was belated in nature and therefore, the request of the petitioner had been rejected.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the reasons given by the Court below, for rejecting the request of the petitioner to reopen the evidence and to examine certain witnesses, is contrary to law and the facts of the case. The learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had stated that the petitioner has closed his evidence before a year and a half and therefore, his request for reopening his evidence, to examine certain witnesses, cannot be granted. The reasons stated by the learned Judge cannot be sustained since, the need for reopening and examining certain witnesses had arisen only during the cross examination of the witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the request made by the petitioner is belated in nature.
6. The learned Judge ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner, by invoking his powers, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The petitioner had made the request for letting in further evidence to prove that the retirement age had been increased to 60 years. The evidence sought to be adduced on behalf of the petitioner would go to the root of the matter in the suit, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007 and it would help the trial Court to adjudicate upon the issues arising for its consideration, more effectively. The learned counsel had also submitted that the discretion of the trial Court had not been exercised properly by considering the comparative hardship between the parties to the suit. The delay had taken place only due to the fact that the former counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had died.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision, reported in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar V. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009(4) SCC 410), wherein it has been held that the main purpose of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is to enable the Court concerned to clarify doubts that may have arisen during the course of the examination of the witnesses. If evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, the trial Court may permit the recall of such witness for re-examination in chief, with the permission to the defendants to cross examine the witnesses.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had stated that the reopening of the petitioners side evidence, at the belated stage, would cause hardship and financial loss to the respondent management. It had also been stated that the respondent management had not entered into a settlement with any union, with regard to the age of retirement of its employees. In fact, the majority of the employees of the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Union, representing the majority of the workmen, had given an undertaking, dated 1.4.2003, to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, confirming the retirement age of the employees, as 58 years. Further, the petitioner had admitted, during his cross examination, that nearly 400 employees had been relieved at the age of 58 years, on their attaining the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, the trial Court had rightly held that the request of the petitioner to reopen the evidence and to examine certain witnesses cannot be granted.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also submitted that the petitioner is not in service, as on date and therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner has a limited scope. He had also stated that the earlier civil revision petition filed by the petitioner, before this Court, had been rejected. The petitioner has not shown sufficient reasons for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, on 19.11.2009, in I.A.No.20433 of 2009, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007. No proper explanation has been given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application for reopening his evidence and for examining certain witnesses. The trial Court had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner, made belatedly, after evidence in the suit had been closed and when it had been listed for arguments. The reasons stated by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are correct and valid. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner had already retired from service and that the scope of the suit is limited in nature. In such circumstances, the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.2614 of 2007, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh To The II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai