Disposed¶49

M.B.Ramamurthy v. the Government of India

Madras HC18 Mar 2025WP/9444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.9444 of 2025; Madras High Court; Justice M. Dhandapani; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Limited; Official Liquidator; Government of India Department of Heavy Industries; Repayable Monthly Advance; Special Performance Allowance; wage settlement; representation dated 06.02.2025; BIFR proceedings; employee dues; closed company; disposal with direction to consider representation; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with the above direction: petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 06.02.2025 to the third respondent (Official Liquidator) with a copy of the order within six weeks; third respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible; no order as to costs. ¶49

M.B.Ramamurthy Vs the Government of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the petitioners Repayable Monthly Advance and Special Performance Allowances with 18% interest, or, as limited by learned counsel for the petitioners, whether the representation dated 06.02.2025 should be directed to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the matter, the Court directed the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated 06.02.2025 to the third respondent along with a copy of the order within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and on receipt of the representation, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Consistent with the submission of learned counsel for the first respondent that the Official Liquidator is the competent authority, the Court directed the representation to be submitted to the third respondent/Official Liquidator rather than the first respondent.

¶48

Key takeaways

Since no adverse order was going to be passed against the second and third respondents, notice to them was dispensed with.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) disposed of W.P.No.9444 of 2025, filed under Article 226 by fifteen former employees of Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of Repayable Monthly Advance and Special Performance Allowances with 18% interest. The Company had been shut down, BIFR proceedings completed, and was taken over by the Official Liquidator; the employees' representation dated 06.02.2025 to the Department of Heavy Industries had not been considered. On the petitioners' limited request, and without going into the merits, the Court directed the petitioners to serve a copy of the representation on the Official Liquidator (third respondent) within six weeks, and directed the Official Liquidator, on receipt, to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Notice to respondents 2 and 3 was dispensed with; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶7

1.M.B.Ramamurthy

¶8

2.B.L.Devaraj

¶9

3.M.Devasena

¶10

4.Sheik Mohideen

¶11

5.Ajjan

¶12

6.Vincent Paulraj

¶13

7.C.Manogaran

¶14

8.Krishnamoorthy

¶15

9.Sahaya Raj

¶16

10.Francis

¶17

11.Bala Sathish Kumar

¶18

12.R.Venkatesh 13.K.Balaraman

¶19

14.Halan

¶20

15.Joyce Margaret Marshal ... Petitioners

¶21

Vs.

¶22

1.The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, New Delhi.

¶23

Page 1 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶26

2.Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co., Limited, Indu Nagar, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu-643 005.

¶27

3.The Official Liquidator, Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Limited, M/s.SPP and Co, Chartered Accountants, No.27/9, Nivedh Vikas, Pankaja Mill Road, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore-641 045. ... Respondents

¶28

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners with Repayable Monthly Advance and Special Performance Allowances with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of amount due till the date of realization.

¶29

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasa Moorthy

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay

¶32

the petitioners with Repayable Monthly Advance and Special Performance Allowances with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of amount become due till the date of realization.

¶33

Page 2 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶36

The facts of the case are that the petitioners were the employees

¶37

of the second respondent Company and the said Company was shut down and BIFR proceedings were also completed. There were many writ petitions and the writ appeals filed and the matter reached till the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioners, in terms of wage settlement, have sent a representation to settle the Repayable Monthly Advance and Special Performance Allowance to the employees to the first respondent on 06.02.2025. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.02.2025 on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶39

Page 3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that due to financial loss sustained by the second respondent Company, the Company was taken over by the third respondent/Official Liquidator and the third respondent is the Competent Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Instead of submitting the representation before the third respondent, the petitioners have made representation before the first respondent.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the second and third respondents, notice to the second and third respondents is dispensed with.

¶44

Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to send a copy of the representation dated

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.9444 of 2025

¶48

06.02.2025 to the third respondent along with a copy of this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the representation made by the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶49

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

18.03.2025

¶51

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶52

To The Secretary, The Government of India, Department of Heavy Industries, New Delhi.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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