High Court affirms adjudication of additional documents' genuineness during trial in labor claim proceedings.

The Appellant, Managing Director of the second respondent management, challenged a Writ Court order dated 10.10.2025.

The first respondent (workman) had originally filed a claim petition (C.P.No.129 of 2012) for monetary dues.

During those proceedings, the workman filed an interlocutory application to produce additional documents, but the Labour Court ultimately dismissed the claim petition.

The workman challenged this dismissal in W.P.No.2864 of 2021.

The Writ Court allowed the petition, directing the Labour Court to consider the additional documents, allow all parties to establish their validity, and pass fresh orders within three months.

The Appellant filed the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, contending that the additional documents are forged.

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in directing the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the genuineness and validity of additional documents produced by the workman.

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

It applied the principle that a Writ Court may interfere with lower tribunal orders to ensure a fair opportunity for parties to establish evidence, provided there is no "infirmity or perversity" in such directions.

The Court maintained that the genuineness of disputed documents is a matter of fact to be tested during the course of trial/adjudication.

The Court examined the Appellant’s contention that the additional documents were forged and that the Writ Court should not have formed even a prima facie opinion on them.

The Bench observed that the Writ Court did not validate the documents but merely provided the workman an opportunity to establish their genuineness before the competent forum (the Labour Court).

The Court reasoned that since the Labour Court was directed to afford "due opportunity to all parties" and test the validity of the documents during the proceedings, the Appellant’s rights were protected.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the Writ Court's directive to consider additional evidence and adhere to a timeline for disposal, the Court declined to interfere.

The Court affirmed the direction to the Labour Court to consider the additional documents on their merits and in accordance with law within the stipulated three-month period.

No costs were awarded.