M THANGAVEL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 1st Respondent relating to an order dated 30.07.2009 made in I.A.No.285 of 2008 in W.C.No.315 of 2005 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for issuance of a direction to the 1st Respondent to afford adequate opportunity to him for letting in oral and documentary evidence and thereafter to decide the case on merits.

(2.) The 1st Respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.285 of 2008 in W.C.No.315 of 2005, on 30.07.2009, has, inter alia, observed that 'Even though ample opportunities have been provided to the Respondent's side to produce witnesses and failed, the averments made in his reply statement was taken as his side arguments and in view of the fact that Award was passed on merits, the request of the Petitioner in Interlocutory Application has been negatived and dismissed'.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 30.07.2009 in dismissing the I.A.No.285 of 2008 [filed by the Writ Petitioner] is an arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.