Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Management of A.1480 Vs The Presiding Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
The Management of A.1480 Vs The Presiding OfficerThe Management of A.1480 v. The Presiding Officer

Dismissed¶42

The Management of A.1480 v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC19 Jun 2025WA(MD)/123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pannaikkadu Cooperative Stores Limited management vs Muruganantham and Rajagopal; cooperative society employee termination 1991 for alleged misappropriation; joined service 1981; Labour Court Tiruchirappalli award reinstatement with 50% back wages; belated charge memo after 7 1/2 years; writ petitions W.P.(MD)Nos.2285 & 2286 of 2014 partly allowed by single Judge dated 31.10.2022; writ appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent; Division Bench will not re-appreciate facts already considered by Labour Court and single Judge; W.A.(MD)Nos.123 & 124 of 2023 dismissed, no costs; C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1569 & 1572 of 2023 closed; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar JJ.; decided 19.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-management; both writ appeals dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the single Judge's confirmation of the Labour Court awards intact.

Why is it important?

When the Labour Court has gone into the question of fact and rendered a decision, and the learned single Judge has also once again gone into it, the question of the Division Bench re-appreciating the facts does not arise. ¶41

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-management; both writ appeals dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the single Judge's confirmation of the Labour Court awards intact.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned single Judge's order confirming the Labour Court awards, given that both the Labour Court and the single Judge had already examined the questions of fact.

Court's answer

When the Labour Court has gone into the question of fact and rendered a decision, and the learned single Judge has also once again gone into it, the question of the Division Bench re-appreciating the facts does not arise.

Ratio / Principle

On that basis, both writ appeals are dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar, JJ.): Two writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Management of A.1480 Pannaikkadu Cooperative Stores Limited against the common order dated 31.10.2022 in W.P.(MD)Nos.2285 and 2286 of 2014 were dismissed. The workmen, who joined service in 1981, were terminated in 1991 on allegations of misappropriation; the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages, and the learned single Judge confirmed those awards (noting the charge memo was issued after 7 1/2 years) while setting aside the costs imposed by the Labour Court. The Division Bench held that where the Labour Court has gone into the question of fact and rendered a decision, and the learned single Judge has again examined it, the question of the Division Bench re-appreciating the facts does not arise. Appeals dismissed with no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1569 & 1572 of 2023 closed. Judgment dated 19.06.2025, delivered by G.R. Swaminathan, J.

A

1 W.A.(MD)Nos.123 OF 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.(MD)Nos.123 & 124 of 2023 & C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1569 & 1572 of 2023

W.A.(MD)No.123 of 2023

The Management of A.1480 Pannaikkadu Cooperative Stores Limited, Pannaikkadu, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Appellant / Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli.

Muruganantham ... Respondents / Respondents

W.A.(MD)No.124 of 2023

The Management of A.1480 Pannaikkadu Cooperative Stores Limited, Pannaikkadu, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Appellant / Petitioner

Vs.

1/5

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

2 W.A.(MD)Nos.123 OF 2023

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli.

Rajagopal ... Respondents / Respondents

Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeals and set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.2285 and 2286 of 2014 dated 31.10.2022.

(in both W.As.) For Appellant : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam For R-2 : Mr.Mohammed Suhail

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

The management of a Cooperative Society is the appellant in

both the writ appeals. The management issued orders of termination against the second respondents herein on the ground that they had indulged in misappropriation. Termination orders were passed way back in the year 1991. The employees had joined service in the year 1981. They raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Trichy.

2/5

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

3 W.A.(MD)Nos.123 OF 2023

The Labour Court, Trichy passed awards in their favour directing their reinstatement together with 50% back wages. Challenging the same, the management filed writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were partly allowed by the learned single Judge in the following

terms:-

“9. This Court has taken the rival submission on the either side and has given its anxious consideration. It is seen from the records that the charge memo was issued after 7 ½ years from the date of occurrence. Since the Labour Court has held that the allegations were not proved and since the second respondents are nearing 68 and 70 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award of the Labour Court ought to be confirmed in order to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, based on the belated charge memo also this relief is granted. Therefore, this Court is confirming the award of the Labour Court and the petitioner's Management are directed to pay 50% of back wages to the second respondents until their superannuation.

The Labour Court has allowed the petitions of the second respondents on payment of costs. This Court is setting aside that portion of the

3/5

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

4 W.A.(MD)Nos.123 OF 2023

order where the cost is imposed.”

Challenging the same, these writ appeals have been filed.

When the Labour Court has gone into the question of fact

and rendered the decision and the same has also been once again gone into by the learned single Judge, the question of the Division Bench re-appreciating the facts does not arise at all. In this view of the matter, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 19^th June 2025

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

To:

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli.

4/5

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

5 W.A.(MD)Nos.123 OF 2023

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

PMU

W.A.(MD)Nos.123 & 124 of 2023

19.06.2025

5/5

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned single Judge's order confirming the Labour Court awards, given that both the Labour Court and the single Judge had already examined the questions of fact.¶41
The court held
When the Labour Court has gone into the question of fact and rendered a decision, and the learned single Judge has also once again gone into it, the question of the Division Bench re-appreciating the facts does not arise.ratio¶41

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order in W.P.(MD)Nos.2285 and 2286 of 2014 by the learned single Judge, partly allowing the management's writ petitions: the Labour Court awards were confirmed and the management directed to pay 50% back wages until superannuation; the portion imposing costs was set aside.¶21
Madras High Court (learned single Judge) · 31.10.2022
Prior proceeding
Employees joined service in 1981; the management terminated them in 1991 on the ground of misappropriation.¶28
Prior proceeding
The workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Trichy.¶28
Prior proceeding
The Labour Court, Trichy passed awards in favour of the workmen directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.¶32
Prior proceeding
The management challenged the awards by filing writ petitions, which the learned single Judge partly allowed.¶32
Prior proceeding
In the impugned order the learned single Judge confirmed the Labour Court award and directed payment of 50% back wages until superannuation, citing the belated charge memo (issued after 7 1/2 years).¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The Management of A.1480 Pannaikkadu Cooperative Stores Limited, Pannaikkadu, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District¶9
V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
respondent
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli¶11
respondent
Muruganantham¶12
Mohammed Suhail
respondent
Rajagopal¶20
Mohammed Suhail

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶25
K.RAJASEKARmember¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 19 Jun 2025 · June
Registered: 8 Feb 2023
Case no.: WA(MD)/123/2023
CNR: HCMD010069392023
Bench: G.r.swaminathan K.rajasekar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan K.rajasekar

Chithambaranathan(Died) 1. Rengammal Vs Paramasivan
18 Jun 2025
T.Mariselvi Vs The District Collector
18 Jun 2025
The Director General Vs P Govindaraju
18 Jun 2025
Thangaraj @ Santhanakrishnan Vs Sudhanthiram died
19 Jun 2025
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs R Suresh
19 Jun 2025
Dcw Anaithu Paniyalargal Nala Sangam Vs M/s.Dcw Ltd.
19 Jun 2025

Cite this judgement

The Management of A.1480 v. The Presiding Officer, WA(MD)/123/2023 (MAD), decided on 19 June 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Common order in W.P.(MD)Nos.2285 and 2286 of 2014 by the learned single Judge, partly allowing the management's writ petitions: the Labour Court awards were confirmed and the management directed to pay 50% back wages until superannuation; the portion imposing costs was set aside.Madras High Court (learned single Judge) · 31.10.2022
Employees joined service in 1981; the management terminated them in 1991 on the ground of misappropriation.
The workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Trichy.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and K.RAJASEKAR

Parties & counsel