Dismissed¶41

Well Knit Industries v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Sept 2025WA/456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal dismissed; reinstatement award of Labour Court, Coimbatore (award dated 27.09.2016, I.A.No.675 of 2008) confirmed; oral termination dated 20.11.2006 set aside; contract-labour plea of Management (Well Knit Industries, Tirupur) rejected for non-registration under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and non-production of contractor agreement; E.S.I. card Ex.W7 evidencing employer-employee relationship; no backwages awarded; Single Judge order in W.P.No.8799 of 2017 dated 12.09.2023 upheld; workman M. Murugesan attained superannuation March 2025; no costs; C.M.P.No.3041 of 2024 closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.3041 of 2024) was closed. ¶41

Well Knit Industries Vs The Presiding Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.3041 of 2024) was closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent (workman M.Murugesan) was a contract employee engaged through a contractor, or stood in a direct employer-employee relationship with the Management (Well Knit Industries). +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Labour Court had passed the reinstatement award by properly appreciating the evidences before it.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the Management failed to discharge its statutory obligation to register itself for engaging contract labour and did not substantiate its claim that the workman was a contract employee.

¶32

Key takeaways

This Court found no reasons to interfere with either the award of the Labour Court or the order passed in the Writ Petition.ratio¶38
The Court recorded that the 2nd respondent (workman) had reached the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2025.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (M.S. Ramesh and R. Sakthivel, JJ.) dismissed W.A.No.456 of 2024 with connected C.M.P.No.3041 of 2024 on 24.09.2025. The appeal by Well Knit Industries under Clause 15 of Letter Patent challenged the order dated 12.09.2023 in W.P.No.8799 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge had confirmed the Labour Court, Coimbatore award dated 27.09.2016 in I.A.No.675 of 2008 setting aside the oral termination of workman M. Murugesan (claimed to be on 20.11.2006) and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without any award of backwages. The Management's plea that the workman was a contract employee had been disbelieved below because it had not registered itself for engaging contract workers as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and had not produced any contract with the alleged contractor, while the workman's E.S.I. card (Ex.W7) supported an employer-employee relationship. The Division Bench held the Labour Court had properly appreciated the evidence, endorsed the Single Judge's findings, found no reasons to interfere with either the award or the writ order, recorded that the workman had attained superannuation in March 2025, and dismissed the appeal with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

W.A.No.456 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.09.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶8

W.A.No.456 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.3041 of 2024

¶9

Well Knit Industries

¶10

Represented by its HR-ADMIN Manager P.Murugesan No.61, 15-Velampalayam Main Road Anupparpalayam (P.O.) Tirupur 641 65 ... Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore District

¶13

2.M.Murugesan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 12.09.2023 made in W.P.No.8799 of 2017 passed by this Court by allowing this Writ Appeal.

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.No.456 of 2024

¶18

M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶19

Claiming that the 2nd respondent herein was terminated orally on 20.11.2006 by the Management, he had raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.675 of 2008. The Labour Court vide award dated 27.09.2016, setaside the order of dismissal and directed the Management to reinstate the workman together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. However, no award was passed for payment of backwages. When the Management had challenged the award of the Labour Court before the Writ Court in W.P.No.8799 of 2017, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P.No.8799 of 2017 on 12.09.2023, as against which the present appeal has been filed.

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the Management argued that the workman was the contract employee and was never under their regular services. According to him, the Labour Court, had disregarded this aspect and passed the award for reinstatement, which aspect was also not

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.A.No.456 of 2024

¶24

properly appreciated by the Writ Court.

¶25

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that sufficient evidences were let in before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, with regard to the workman's employment under the Management, and in appreciation of such evidences, the Labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there existed an employer - employee relationship, and accordingly passed an award for reinstatement. The leanred Single Judge had also taken into account that the petitioner was not properly registered for engaging contract workers and therefore disbelieved their claim that the workman was a contract employee.

¶26

4.Before the Labour Court, the main contention of the Management that the workman was a contract employee was disbelieved predominantly on the ground that the Management had not registered themselves for engaging contract workers as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Labour Court had also taken into account that if there was any contract between the Management and

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.No.456 of 2024

¶30

the alleged contractor, the Management ought to have produced the contract before the Labour Court, which they had failed, and therefore had disbelieved their claim with regard to engaging the said workman through a contractor.

¶31

5.This apart, the Labour Court had also taken into account of the E.S.I. card viz. Ex.W7 produced by the workman and come to the conclusion that there was an employer - employee relationship between the Management and the 2nd respondent. It is in this background, the oral termination was set aside and reinstatement was ordered.

¶32

6.In our view, the Labour Court had passed such an award by properly appreciating the evidences before it. The learned Single Judge was also right in rendering a finding that the statutory obligation on the part of the Management to register themselves for engaging contract

¶33

services was not done and they have not substantiated before the Labour

¶34

Court that the workman was a contract employee.

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.A.No.456 of 2024

¶38

7.We do not find any reasons to interfere with both the award of the

¶39

Labour Court or the order passed in the Writ Petition. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the 2nd respondent had reached the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2025. The statement is

¶40

hereby recorded.

¶41

8.In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶42

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

kas

¶44

Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation Speaking / Non Speaking

¶45

M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.