The Superintending Engineer Vs The Inspector of Labour — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Superintending Engineer Vs The Inspector of Labour — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the very same cause of action challenging the very same award if the employees report before the petitioner and seek implementation of the order or work; connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge to the award should proceed to adjudication when the workmen in whose favour the award was made are absent, not in employment, and no one currently seeks its implementation.

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the very same cause of action challenging the very same order if the employees report before the petitioner and seek for implementation of the order or work; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

Ratio / Principle

Adjudication/implementation of the award was treated as called for only if the employees come to the Board seeking implementation of the order; since that cause was presently absent, withdrawal in place of adjudication was accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.23551 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J., 02.12.2025): Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent, the Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri, in A./3492/2010 dated 20.06.2011 (relating to conferment of permanent status claimed by workmen R2–R7). At hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workmen were not in employment, had never reported for employment, were untraceable at their original addresses, and that service was completed only through substituted service (notices to R2–R5 served; for R6 and R7 'not ready in notice'). The court held that adjudication/implementation is called for only if the employees come to the Board seeking implementation of the order — a cause presently absent — and, with that liberty, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the very same cause of action challenging the very same order in case the employees later report and seek implementation of the order or work; the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No substantive adjudication of the award's validity took place; no precedent was engaged with.

W.P.No.23551 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.23551 of 2014

M.P.No.1 of 2014

The Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO,

Dharmapur – 5. ...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri.

2.L.Krishnan

Bargur – I Section.

3.P.Murugan

Bargur – I Section.

4.G.Chennappan,

Bargur – I Section.

5.C.Ramachandran,

Bargur – I Section.

6.V.Madhesh

Morappur & Kambainallur.

7.C.Ramasamy Morappur & Kambainallur ...Respondents

1/5

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

W.P.No.23551 of 2014 PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the award passed by the 1st respondent

made in A./3492/2010 dated 20.06.2011 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopal for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthilmurugan Special Government Pleader for R1 R2 to R5 (Notice served) (For R6 and R7) Not ready in notice

ORDER

When the matter came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that even though the petitioner claimed for conferment of permanent

status and got an award, they are not in employment and they have never even reported for employment neither they have come before this Court. Even the notices in the original address is not served and they are unheard of and service is

completed only through substituted service.

2.In that view of the matter, the adjudication is necessary, if only the

employees come to the Board, seeking for implementation of the order, since at

2/5

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

W.P.No.23551 of 2014 present the said cause is not there, the learned counsel seeks withdrawal of the

Writ Petition with liberty to file a Writ Petition on the very same cause of action challenging the very same order, in case the employees report before the petitioner

and seek for implementation of the order or work. With the said liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

02.12.2025

ep

Neutral citation : Yes/No

To

1.The Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

3/5

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

W.P.No.23551 of 2014

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

ep

4/5

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

W.P.No.23551 of 2014

W.P.No.23551 of 2014 M.P.No.1 of 2014

02.12.2025

5/5

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