A management challenged a Payment of Wages Act order directing it to pay an employee's salary for May 2017. Since a subsisting injunction restrained the management from making appointments and had been confirmed up to the High Court, the court held the wage claim did not arise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16740 of 2021
Management, Pandiya Vellar Madam, No.13, Gandhi Road, Palani, Dindigul District.
...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Authority, [The Joint Commissioner of Labour], The Joint Commissioner of Labour Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2.S.Selvaraj
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 in PWA.No.5 of 2017 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rajesh Saravanan.B For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinodh No.1 For Respondent : Mr.D.Shanmuga Raja Sethupathi No.2
1/6
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner management has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent on the application filed by the 2nd respondent under the Payment of Wages Act. The 2nd respondent claiming to be an employee of the petitioner management has filed an application before the 1st respondent under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act seeking salary for the month of May 2017. The 1st respondent entertained that application in PWA.No.5 of 2017 and allowed the same by order dated 18.01.2021, directing the management to pay the wages payable to the 2nd respondent as claimed by him. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner management has filed this writ petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the orders passed by this court in CRP(MD)No.1025 and 1026 of 2017 dated 06.06.2017 submits that as against the 2nd respondent and other employees of the petitioner madam, civil suits were filed before the District Munsif Court, Palani in OS.No.136 of 2016 and the District Munisif Court granted an interim injunction to make an appointment by 2/6
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
the petitioner management vide order dated 20.01.2017, in IA Nos.539 and 540 of 2016. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent one of the defendants in the said suit has filed appeals before the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul in CMA Nos.12 and 13 of 2017 and the appeals were dismissed by order dated 03.04.2017. The defendants have also preferred Civil Revision Petitions before this court as against the orders passed in CMA.Nos.12 and 13 of 2017 in CRP(MD)Nos.1025 and 1026 of 2017 and the same were dismissed by this Court by order dated 06.06.2017. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the 2nd respondent was not employed during the month of May 2017. When there is a specific injunction in operation as against the 2nd respondent defendant in OS.No.136 of 2016, the claim of the 2nd respondent for payment of wages for the month of May 2017 does not arise and the 1st respondent authority without considering the same has allowed the application in PWA.No.5 of 2017 filed by the 2nd respondent in a mechanical manner.
3/6
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
with the said order.
4.This court has considered the rival submissions made.
5.The claim of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent is for
payment of salary for the month of May 2017 and admittedly the management has filed civil suit as against the 2nd respondent and others before the District Munsif Court, Palani in OS.No.136 of 2016 and has also obtained an order of injunction in IA.Nos.539 and 540 of 2016 dated 20.01.2017 restraining the petitioner madam from making any appointment. This order of injunction is also confirmed by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul in civil miscellaneous appeals and also by this court in civil revision petitions. While so this Court is of the view that the order passed by the 1st respondent is not proper and without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.11.2025
4/6
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
DSK
To
The Authority, [The Joint Commissioner of Labour], The Joint Commissioner of Labour Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
5/6
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
DSK
WP(MD)No.20039 of 2021
05.11.2025
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the labour authority's order awarding May 2017 wages was sustainable given an interim injunction restraining appointment of the employee in a related civil suit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Management, Pandiya Vellar Madam
The Authority [The Joint Commissioner of Labour], Dindigul
S.Selvaraj
B.PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
