Dismissed¶46

The Management v. P. Arumugam

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WA/1015/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MTC Chennai v. P.Arumugam: Madras HC writ appeals Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025 dismissed 08-04-2026 (S.M.Subramaniam & K.Surender, JJ.); finality of back-wages direction in W.P.No.19317 of 1994 (01.11.1988 to superannuation 31.12.1997); Payment of Wages Act enforcement via Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (P.W.A.No.10 of 2013 order dated 10.12.2014; P.W.A.No.1 of 2023); writ orders dated 12.09.2024 and 18.02.2025 left undisturbed; no costs; connected CMPs closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant Management: both writ appeals dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P.Nos.8275 & 9351 of 2025) closed; the impugned writ orders directing payment of back wages / implementation of the order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013 stand. ¶46

The Management Vs P. Arumugam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the writ orders dated 18.02.2025 (W.P.No.5403 of 2025) and 12.09.2024 (W.P.No.26677 of 2024) directing the appellant Management to pay the workman back wages pursuant to the direction in W.P.No.19317 of 1994, which had become final.

¶42

Court's answer

The direction issued by the writ Court in W.P.No.19317 of 1994 to pay back wages from 01.11.1988 till the date of superannuation on 31.12.1997 became final (the Management's writ appeal having been dismissed), and the subsequent Payment of Wages proceedings were pursued under the strength of that final direction.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Chief Judge as well as the writ Court considered the issues in a right perspective, acting on the final back-wages direction.

¶42

Key takeaways

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ orders impugned; accordingly the writ appeals stand dismissed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common judgment (S.M.Subramaniam & K.Surender, JJ., High Court of Judicature at Madras, 08-04-2026): Writ Appeal No.1015 of 2025 (challenging the writ order dated 18.02.2025 in W.P.No.5403 of 2025) and Writ Appeal No.1230 of 2025 (challenging the writ order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.26677 of 2024), filed by the Management, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd, dismissed with no costs; connected C.M.P.Nos.8275 & 9351 of 2025 closed. Workman P.Arumugam, appointed Electrician Grade III on 07.05.1966 and terminated on 03.10.1974 after departmental enquiry, held a final writ-court direction (W.P.No.19317 of 1994, partly allowed 14.09.2001; Management's writ appeal dismissed at SR stage) to back wages from 01.11.1988 till superannuation on 31.12.1997. Enforcement proceeded under the Payment of Wages Act through the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013; P.W.A.No.1 of 2023). Holding that the back-wages direction had become final and that the Chief Judge and the writ Court had considered the issues in the right perspective, the Bench declined interference with the impugned writ orders.

¶1

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.8275 & 9351 of 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal No.1015 of 2025

¶9

The Management, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Chennai 600 002.

¶10

..Appellant

¶11

¶12

P.Arumugam S/o.Ponnappa Naicker

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 18.02.2025 made in Writ Petition No.5403 of 2025.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Vinothraj For Respondents : No appearance [R1] Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader [R2]

¶17

__________ Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶20

Writ Appeal No.1230 of 2025

¶21

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

..Appellant

P.Arumugam

..Respondent

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 12.09.2024 made in Writ Petition No.26677 of 2024.

¶27

For Appellant : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Vinothraj For Respondent : No appearance [R1] *****

¶28

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶29

( Delivered by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)

¶30

Under assail is the writ order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition

¶31

No.5403 of 2025 and the writ order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.26677 of 2024.

¶32

Page2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶35

The Management of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai,

¶36

is the appellant before this Court.

¶37

The first respondent one P.Arumugam was appointed as ElectricianGrade III by the State Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, on 07.05.1966. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 19.06.1971 to 15.08.1971. He was terminated from service on 03.10.1974 after conducting departmental enquiry. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.861 of 1989 and it was dismissed on 14.07.1994. Subsequently, W.P.No.19317 of 1994 was filed before the High Court and the writ petition was partly allowed on 14.09.2001 directing the appellant herein to pay back wages from 01.11.1988 till the date of superannuation on 31.12.1997. The writ appeal filed by the Management was dismissed at the SR stage. Since the back wages as ordered by the writ Court in W.P.No.19317 of 1994 was not paid, the first respondent workman filed an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, elaborately considered the appeal and directed the appellant Management to pay the back wages as determined by the writ Court in the above writ petition. Challenging the said order, the appellant Management filed P.W.A.No.1 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, by order dated 01.02.2024. Thereafter, the appellant Management filed a writ petition challenging the said order and the writ Court considered the findings of the Chief Judge in Payment of Wages Appeal and

¶38

Page3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶41

found that the appellant Management has not established any acceptable ground for interfering with the order passed by the Chief Judge in the Payment of Wages Appeal. The first respondent has also filed W.P.No.26677 of 2024 seeking a direction to the appellant Management to pay the wages as per the order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013, which was confirmed in P.W.A.No.1 of 2023 by order dated 01.03.2024. The writ Court, by order dated 12.09.2024, has directed the appellant Management to implement the order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013.

¶42

It is not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant Management that W.P.No.19317 of 1994 was partly allowed and the appellant Management was directed to pay back wages from 01.11.1988 till the date of superannuation on 31.12.1997. The writ appeal filed by the appellant Management was also dismissed. Thus, the direction issued by the writ Court to pay back wages from 01.11.1988 till the date of superannuation on 31.12.1997 became final and under the strength of the said order, the workman preferred Payment of Wages Appeal. Thus, the Chief Judge as well as the writ Court have considered the issues in a right perspective based on the direction issued by the writ Court to pay back wages, which became final. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ orders impugned.

¶43

__________ Page4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶46

Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶47

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

[S.M.S., J.] [K.S., J.] 08-04-2026

¶49

Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶50

¶51

¶52

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶53

__________ Page5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶56

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND K.SURENDER, J.

¶57

¶58

Writ Appeal Nos.1015 & 1230 of 2025

¶59

08-04-2026

¶60

__________ Page6 of 6

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two writ orders of the High Court of Judicature at Madras under assail: the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.5403 of 2025 and the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.26677 of 2024.¶31
High Court of Judicature at Madras · 18.02.2025 and 12.09.2024
Prior proceeding
P.Arumugam was appointed as Electrician Grade III by the State Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, on 07.05.1966.¶37
Prior proceeding
Unauthorised absence from 19.06.1971 to 15.08.1971; terminated from service on 03.10.1974 after a departmental enquiry.¶37
Prior proceeding
Industrial dispute I.D.No.861 of 1989 raised by the workman; dismissed on 14.07.1994.¶37
Prior proceeding
W.P.No.19317 of 1994 filed before the High Court; partly allowed on 14.09.2001, directing the Management to pay back wages from 01.11.1988 till superannuation on 31.12.1997.¶37
Prior proceeding
Writ appeal filed by the Management against the W.P.No.19317 of 1994 outcome was dismissed at the SR stage.¶37
Prior proceeding
Back wages ordered in W.P.No.19317 of 1994 went unpaid; the workman filed an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act.¶37
Prior proceeding
The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, considered the Payment of Wages appeal and directed the Management to pay the back wages as determined by the writ Court.¶37
Prior proceeding
The Management challenged the Chief Judge's direction in P.W.A.No.1 of 2023; the appeal was dismissed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, by order dated 01.02.2024.¶37
Prior proceeding
The Management then filed a writ petition against the Payment of Wages Appeal order; the writ Court found no acceptable ground for interfering with the Chief Judge's order.¶41
Prior proceeding
The workman filed W.P.No.26677 of 2024 seeking a direction to the Management to pay the wages as per the order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013.¶41
Prior proceeding
The order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013 was confirmed in P.W.A.No.1 of 2023 by order dated 01.03.2024 (as stated at ¶41; cf. dismissal date 01.02.2024 at ¶37).¶41
Prior proceeding
By order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.26677 of 2024, the writ Court directed the Management to implement the order dated 10.12.2014 in P.W.A.No.10 of 2013.¶41

The Management v. P. Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. P. Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Manonmani Vs Durgamoorthi and 3 others

A.Vamanan Vs District Collector

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/s. Parkside Estate

Prakash Vs the District Collector

Mahendran Vs The District Collector

Manogaran M Vs the District Collector