The Zonal manger v. National Food corporation of India

Madras HC12 Sept 2025WA(MD)/2646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Madurai Bench writ appeal amendment order dated 24.09.2025 amending order dated 12.09.2025; W.A.(MD)No.2646 of 2025; Food Corporation of India as R1 and R3 appellants; Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner R2; mandamus for regularization and departmentalization of petitioner union workers with service benefits; writ petition disposed 30.06.2025; union representation dated 23.11.2024; direction only for consideration by R2; no positive direction to R2; matter at large before R2; R2 notice issued, process ongoing; fresh amended copy ordered; Dr. Anita Sumanth J.; C. Kumarappan J.; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated 12.09.2025 are amended as recast, with no other change, and a fresh amended copy of the order dated 12.09.2025 is to be issued. ¶¶12

The Zonal manger Vs National Food corporation of India — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated 12.09.2025 are amended as recast, with no other change, and a fresh amended copy of the order dated 12.09.2025 is to be issued.

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated 12.09.2025 in this writ appeal should be recast as set out, with no other change, and a fresh amended copy issued. +1 more

¶¶4

Court's answer

Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order dated 12.09.2025 shall read as recast in the present order.

¶¶4

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the recast of Paragraph Nos.1 to 4, no other change is to be made in the order dated 12.09.2025, and a fresh amended copy of that order is to be issued.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

The court is unable to see any grievance of the appellants against the disposal of the writ petition, because the direction issued is only for consideration by R2 of the request made by the petitioner union.ratio¶¶7
No positive direction was given to R2 by the learned Judge to take a view one way or the other; the matter is at large before R2, who has issued notice to the parties, and submissions on the merits should be made only before R2 for his consideration based on the submissions of all parties.ratio¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.A.(MD)No.2646 of 2025, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — coram Dr. Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan JJ.; order dated 24.09.2025 made by Dr. Anita Sumanth J. The order amends Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the Bench's earlier order dated 12.09.2025 and directs issuance of a fresh amended copy, with no other change. The writ appeal was filed by R1 and R3 in the writ petition (described as the Food Corporation of India) against the disposal of a writ petition on 30.06.2025, in which the petitioner union had sought a mandamus directing the second respondent / Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (R2) to in turn direct R1 and R3 to regularize and departmentalize the services of the union's workers with all attendant and service benefits. The amended order records that the same prayer had been the subject of the union's representation to R2 dated 23.11.2024; that the learned Judge had directed R2 to dispose of that representation after hearing the writ petitioner, R1 and R3; that no positive direction was given to R2 to take a view either way; and that merits-based submissions should be advanced only before R2, before whom the matter remains at large, notices having been issued and the process ongoing.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2646 of 2025

¶2

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶3

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶4

Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of order dated 12.09.2025 shall read as follows:-

¶5

"The present appeal has been filed by R1 and R3 in the writ petition, the Food Corporation of India.

¶6

2. The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent / Deputy Chief Labout Commissioner to in turn direct R1 and R3 to regularize and departmentalize forthwith the services of the workers of the petitioner union with all attendant and service benefits. That writ petition came to be disposed on 30.06.2025.

¶7

3. We are unable to see what the grievance of the appellants, qua that order, as in conclusion, the direction issued is for consideration by R2, of the request made by the petitioner union. It transpires that the very prayer put forth before this Court had been the subject matter of a representation by the writ petitioner on 23.11.2024 before R2. Hence the learned Judge has directed R2 to dispose that representation after hearing both the writ petitioner, as well as R1 and R3.

¶8

1/3

¶9

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

¶10

4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants would submit that R2 has issued notice to the parties and the process is now on-going. He now wishes to advance submissions before this Court in relation to the merits of the matter, which we believe, should be made only before R2, for his consideration. To be noted that no positive direction has been given to R2 by the learned Judge to take a view one way or the other. Hence the matter is at large before R2 to be decided by him based on the submission of all parties."

¶11