Judgment : 1. The Judgment and Decree dated 12.05.2014 passed in I.A.No.383 of 2013 in I.D.No.670 of 1989 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, allowing the petition, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.D.No.670 of 1989 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, whereas the respondent herein is the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed ID No.670 of 1989 on the file of the labour Court, Madurai, challenging the order of the respondent dismissing him from service. After contest, by award dated 29.03.1991, the Industrial dispute filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2966 of 1989 and this Court by order dated 04.08.1999 remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand, the respondent filed IA No.282 of 2012 for a direction to send certain documents filed in the other connected Industrial Disputes. The said I.A. was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, the respondent has filed CRP (MD) No.2196 of 2013 before this Court. By the order dated 28.03.2014, this Court set aside the order passed by the labour Court in I.A.No.282 of 2012 and permitted to send for the documents and directed the labour Court to dispose the main I.D. by the end of July 2014. 4. The respondent filed I.A.No.383 of 2013 in I.D.No.670 of 1989 for permission to file additional counter statement. The said I.A., for filing additional counter statement was filed, when the ID was posted for arguments. The petitioner resisted the same on the ground that new pleas are sought to be raised by way of additional counter statement and that the respondent's intention is only to drag on the proceedings and the I.D. of the year 1989 is still pending. 5. The Presiding Officer allowed the IA No.383 of 2013 on the ground that no new plea was raised, but pure question of law only raised. Against the said order, allowing I.A. to receive additional counter statement, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. Heard Mr.K.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent Management has not given any reason in filing additional counter statement at the belated stage. Against the said order, allowing I.A. to receive additional counter statement, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. Heard Mr.K.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent Management has not given any reason in filing additional counter statement at the belated stage. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the stage of arguments, the respondent has come out with the present application only with a view to drag on the proceedings. On earlier two occasions, the respondent filed applications for re-opening and re-calling the evidence of P.W.1 and the said applications were allowed and P.W.1 was recalled and cross-examined. This Court, by the order dated 28.03.2014, in C.R.P.(MD) No.2196 of 2013, filed by the respondent, directed the Labour Court to dispose of the main I.D. by the end of July 2014. While the civil revision petition was pending, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.383 of 2013 to file additional counter statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that filing of additional counter statement is not a matter of right for the respondent. The Court must consider the reason given by the respondent and exercise it's discretion judicially in allowing the application for permission to file additional counter statement. 8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the following Judgments: (i) Tajdeen v. Abdul Muthalif [ 2009 (3) MLJ 959 ], wherein in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it has been held as follows:- "5. The lower Court, without adverting to these vital points simply, as a matter of routine, allowed the I.A for filing the additional written statement. In the original written statement, the settlement deed dated 17.3.1960 was denied; whereas, in the additional written statement the versions are such as though it was acted upon. After the major part of the trial was over, the defendants have chosen to take an antithetical stand in the additional written statement quite contrary to what they committed themselves in black and white in their earlier written statement. After the major part of the trial was over, the defendants have chosen to take an antithetical stand in the additional written statement quite contrary to what they committed themselves in black and white in their earlier written statement. I would like to extract here under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. for ready reference: "Order 8 Rule 9: Subsequent Pleadings -No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." 6. It is crystal clear from the above that only on sound reasons, the Court could grant leave to file additional written statement. Here in view of the reasons set out above, absolutely there is no rhyme or reason for granting permission to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the said I.A. shall stand dismissed." (ii) R.S.Nagarajan v. R.S.Gopalan and others [ 2007 (2) LW 987 ], wherein in paragraph No.12, it has been held as follows:- "12. Thus, the above decisions will clearly establish that the defendant cannot raise mutually destructive pleas. In the case on hand, the petitioner now tries to introduce altogether a new case by way of filing an additional written statement. That cannot be allowed. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality in the said order." (iii) Chandra and others v. Ranganathan [ 2005 (4) LW 482 ], wherein in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, it has been held as follows:- "11. .... When the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs had clearly completed, the second defendant was not justified in filing the application to receive the additional written statement. If the additional written statement is entertained at this stage, the plaintiffs would be deprived of the opportunity in meeting the facts and pleadings put forth in the additional written statement. 12. When the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs had clearly completed, the second defendant was not justified in filing the application to receive the additional written statement. If the additional written statement is entertained at this stage, the plaintiffs would be deprived of the opportunity in meeting the facts and pleadings put forth in the additional written statement. 12. The object of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the respective parties, should fully know of the case before the parties go in for trial, so that, the trial may be proceed in that well defined channel. Now, by putting forth new set of facts, after the Plaintiff's evidence is closed, the defendants are only attempting to divert the process of trial. If the application is allowed, there would be no remedy to the plaintiff to adduce proper evidence, thereby, meeting the defence plea set forth. (iv) Devanbu v. Sundara Raj and others [ 2005 (2) MLJ 41 ], wherein in paragraph No.8, it has been held as follows:- "8. .... The defendants have to contest the present suit with the stand and plea already taken in the written statement. Though when the defendants filed written statement, the plea of res judicata was available to them, but they failed to take such a stand in the written statement. Therefore, such plea is deemed to have been waived. Now, it is not open to the defendants to file additional written statement mentioning the facts that the first defendant failed to mention the new survey numbers in the sale deeds executed by him in favour of the defendants 2 to 4, which according to him, have been stated in the counter filed in I.A.No.274 of 1999." (v) Kolandasamy v. Rathinam @ Rathinayal [ 2002 (4) LW 285 ], wherein in paragraph Nos.12 and 13, it has been held as follows:- "12. It is settled law that the defendant cannot insist that Court must receive additional written statement as of right. The above rule requires permission of the Court before any party can make a further pleading after written statement has been filed. Where a defendant intends to file additional written statement, he must file an application showing the circumstances as to why he failed to raise such a plea in the original written statement and the reason for the failure also must be acceptable. 13. Where a defendant intends to file additional written statement, he must file an application showing the circumstances as to why he failed to raise such a plea in the original written statement and the reason for the failure also must be acceptable. 13. Only in that context, the Court has to exercise its discretionary powers in taking decision as to whether additional written statement has to be accepted or not. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion is to be exercised depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. While exercising discretion, the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of the litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship, etc." (vi) H.Ramachandra Rao v. A.Mohideen [ 2000 (1) LW 420 ], wherein in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, it has been held as follows:- "7. In the affidavit in support of the application seeking leave, no reason is given why the contention now sought to be raised was not taken earlier. In the affidavit in support of the application it is alleged that defendant after the agreement for sale has put up multi-storeyed construction in the property and having invested huge amounts on the building, it will be inequitable for Court to grant specific relief. He only said that he has invested huge amounts for putting up the construction. When the affidavit does not disclose any reason for not taking this defence earlier court was justified in rejecting the application. It is also settled law that while granting leave, Court will have to consider the stage of the suit, delay on the part of party on seeking leave and how far the opposite party will be put to hardship if leave is granted. In this case, entire evidence of plaintiff is over. If fresh pleadings are allowed to take place, plaintiff will be put to hardship and entire case will have to be reopened. First written statement was filed in the year 1992 and it was seven years after leave is sought for, to file additional written statement. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is nowhere stated in the affidavit. 8. Petitioner cannot contend or insist that Court must receive additional pleadings as of right. Permission has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is nowhere stated in the affidavit. 8. Petitioner cannot contend or insist that Court must receive additional pleadings as of right. Permission has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion is to be exercised, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In all suchcases, party who seeks leave has to explain as to why this contention was not raised in the earlier pleadings. While exercising discretion, the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship, etc." 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is the petitioner, who is dragging on the proceedings after the I.D. was remanded by this Court in the year 1999. The petitioner, till 2012, did not take any steps to prosecute the I.D. He went to Malaysia and he was settled down there. Only in the year 2012, he started prosecuting the Industrial Dispute. The respondent has reserved their rights to file additional counter statement as and when necessary and now, the respondent is seeking permission to file additional counter statement to set out the necessary legal points for deciding the issue. The respondent is not introducing any new case and therefore, the Presiding Officer, has rightly allowed the application, giving valid reason for granting permission to file additional counter statement. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the Labour Court is only a Tribunal and the strict procedure as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code cannot be insisted while dealing with the application for permission to file additional counter statement. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Rule 34(5) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, which reads as follows:- "34(5) The Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, may allowat any stage of the proceedings, amendment to such statement or re-joinder to the extent necessary for the purpose of determining the real issues included in the order of reference." 10. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following Judgments: (i) Durairaj and others v. Venugopal and another [C.R.P.(NPD) No.4888 of 2011, order passed by this Court, dated 03.07.2012], wherein it has been held as follows:- "9. ..... 26. In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise the power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded. 27. In Chandrasekhar Singh v. Siya Ram Singh the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution came up for consideration of this Court in the context of Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code which prohibits a second revision to the High Court against decision in first revision rendered by the Sessions Judge. 27. In Chandrasekhar Singh v. Siya Ram Singh the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution came up for consideration of this Court in the context of Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code which prohibits a second revision to the High Court against decision in first revision rendered by the Sessions Judge. On a review of earlier decisions, the three-Judge Bench summed up the position of law as under : (SCC pp.121- 22, para 11) (i) that the powers conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot, in any way, be curtailed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors; (iii) that the power of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution;" (ii) Nalgonda Co. op. Marketing v. Labour Court and Others [ 1993 (2) ALT 661 ], wherein in paragraph Nos.17 and 23, it has been held as follows:- "17. .... Just because a District Judge happens to preside over a Labour Court, it does not automatically become a court, Under Section 11, only limited powers under the Civil Procedure Code regarding the enforcement of the attendance of a person, compelling the production of documents issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses, are conferred on the Labour Court. It is deemed to be a Civil Court only for the limited purpose of Sections 345, 346 and 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is left to the Labour Court to follow such procedure as it may think fit. .... 23. Therefore, merely because a Labour Court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act has certain trappings of a Civil Court, it cannot be considered to be a Civil Court. The judicial functions performed by a Labour Court are different from those performed by an ordinary Court of law. A Labour Court has no other function except that of adjudicating matters entrusted to it under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is outside the hierarchy of the ordinary judicial system. The judicial functions performed by a Labour Court are different from those performed by an ordinary Court of law. A Labour Court has no other function except that of adjudicating matters entrusted to it under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is outside the hierarchy of the ordinary judicial system. The Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to its proceedings only to a limited extent and it is open to the Labour Court to adopt such procedure which it deems necessary. Therefore, a Labour Court cannot be considered to be an ordinary Court of law and it is only a Tribunal exercising judicial functions." (iii) The Management, Valli Textiles, Sattur Taluk v. K.Jothi and another [W.A.No.1392 of 2006, Judgment of this Court, dated 30.04.2009], wherein in paragraph No.19, it has been held as follows:- "19. .... The said finding cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ court to warrant those findings at any rate, as long as they bare based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonably and possibly one taken. Even, the conduct of the first respondent/workman in the past is also not satisfactory. In fact, he was also suspended from the service on 23.02.1990 for some misconduct. The first respondent/workman acted against the interest of the management which resulted in loss to the management." 11. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. At the out set, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present civil revision petition is not maintainable is untenable and unsustainable. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has supervisory power to correct any error committed by the Courts below. It is well settled that the said jurisdiction must be used cautiously and sparingly. 13. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has supervisory power to correct any error committed by the Courts below. It is well settled that the said jurisdiction must be used cautiously and sparingly. 13. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the respondent itself has filed C.R.P.(MD) No.2196 of 2013 against the order of dismissal dated 19.08.2013, made in I.A.No.282 of 2012 and this Court entertained the revision filed by the respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has committed grave error in allowing the application for permission to file additional counter statement. This Court can entertain the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to verify as to whether the Presiding Officer has really committed any error. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not given any reason for filing an application for permission to file additional counter statement at a belated stage. A reading of the affidavit filed by the respondent reveals that the respondent has given reasons for filing the said application for permission to file additional counter statement. Further, the Labour Court is the Tribunal as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Judgment reported in 1993 (2) ALT 661 cited supra. Therefore, the provision of Civil Procedure Code with regard to filing of additional written statement cannot be strictly followed by the Presiding Officer in considering the application for permission to file additional counter statement. Therefore, the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner himself has not prosecuted the case for twelve years from 1999 to 2012. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to allege that the present application is only to drag on the proceedings. 16. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, has given cogent and valid reasons for allowing the application for permission to file additional counter statement. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. 17. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to allege that the present application is only to drag on the proceedings. 16. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, has given cogent and valid reasons for allowing the application for permission to file additional counter statement. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. 17. It is seen from the records, the I.D. is pending from 1989, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, is directed to take up the trial of I.D.No.670 of 1989 forthwith and conduct the trial on day-to-day basis, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to file re-joinder to the additional counter statement filed by the respondent, if he is so desires or so advised. 18. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.