Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Management Vs S.Lurthu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
The Management Vs S.LurthuThe Management v. S.Lurthu

Dismissed¶35

The Management v. S.Lurthu

Madras HC28 Jan 2026WA/183/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench, WA No. 183 of 2026, decided 28-01-2026 (C.Kumarappan J., S.M.Subramaniam J.). Appellant: Management M/s.M.S.Builders (Aslam); Respondents: S.Lurthu and Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore. Appeal against Single Judge's order dated 21.03.2023 in WP.No.18007 of 2014 dismissing challenge to exparte Labour Court award dated 08.02.2011; ground of non-speaking order rejected in light of 1300-day delay and exparte order dated 17.12.2013 in Computation Petition CP.No.248 of 2013; writ appeal dismissed, no costs. Keywords: writ appeal, certiorari, exparte award, speaking order, delay, computation petition, labour court.

What did the court decide?

In view of the factual position that the workman had already filed a Computation Petition (CP.No.248 of 2013) in which an exparte order was passed on 17.12.2013, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be allowed — i.e., whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to set aside the Labour Court's exparte award dated 08.02.2011, the principal ground urged being that the Tribunal's order is not a speaking order — despite the appellant's approach to the Court with a delay of 1300 days.

Court's answer

In view of the factual position that the workman had already filed a Computation Petition (CP.No.248 of 2013) in which an exparte order was passed on 17.12.2013, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration all these aspects, at this length of time the Bench found no merits to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) — Management M/s.M.S.Builders challenged the exparte award dated 08.02.2011 of the Labour Court through WP.No.18007 of 2014, contending that the Tribunal's order was not a speaking order; the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting the petitioner's failure to move to set aside the exparte award within a reasonable time and a delay of 1300 days in approaching the Court. Meanwhile, the workman had filed Computation Petition CP.No.248 of 2013, in which an exparte order was passed on 17.12.2013. The Division Bench (judgment delivered by C.Kumarappan J.; S.M.Subramaniam J. on the Bench) found no infirmity in the Single Judge's conclusion and no merits to interfere at that length of time; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

A

2026:MHC:448

WA No. 183 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WA No. 183 of 2026

The Management M/s.M.S.Builders, Aslam, S/o.Inayathullah, Mulla Street, Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.

..Appellant(s)

Vs

S.Lurthu,

The Presiding Officer,

The Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent issuing writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 21.2.2023 in WP.No.18007 of 2014 and allow the WA.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Venkateswaran

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WA No. 183 of 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.Kumarappan J.)

The present writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2023 in WP.No.18007 of 2014.

2.The appellants challenged the exparte award dated 08.02.2011 before

the learned Single Judge. The main ground urged before the learned Single Judge is that the order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order. However, the learned Single Judge, after having considered various aspects, more particularly the conduct of the petitioner in not preferring any application to set aside the exparte award of the Labour Court within a reasonable time, and has approached the Court with a delay of 1300 days, has ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Even before us the appellant reiterated the contention urged before the learned Single Judge.

3.We have given our anxious consideration to the appellant submissions.

While looking at the proclivity of the proceedings, the award was passed by Labour Court in the year 2011 and subsequently, the workmen has filed a Computation Petition in CP.No.248 of 2013, wherein also an exparte

Page2 of 4

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

WA No. 183 of 2026

order was passed on 17.12.2013. In view of the above factual position, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.

Taking into consideration of all these aspects, at this length of time, we do not

find any merits to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 28-01-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

GD

To

The Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

Page3 of 4

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

WA No. 183 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

GD

WA No. 183 of 2026

28-01-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ appeal should be allowed — i.e., whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to set aside the Labour Court's exparte award dated 08.02.2011, the principal ground urged being that the Tribunal's order is not a speaking order — despite the appellant's approach to the Court with a delay of 1300 days.medium confidence¶26
The court held
In view of the factual position that the workman had already filed a Computation Petition (CP.No.248 of 2013) in which an exparte order was passed on 17.12.2013, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge.ratio¶32

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.18007 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition by which the appellants had challenged the exparte award dated 08.02.2011 of the Labour Court; the Single Judge found no application to set aside the exparte award was made within a reasonable time and noted a delay of 1300 days in approaching the Court.¶24
High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 21.03.2023
Prior proceeding
Labour Court passed an exparte award dated 08.02.2011, which the appellants challenged before the learned Single Judge.¶25
Prior proceeding
The workman filed a Computation Petition in CP.No.248 of 2013 before the Labour Court.¶28
Prior proceeding
An exparte order was passed in the Computation Petition CP.No.248 of 2013 on 17.12.2013.¶32
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, having considered the petitioner's conduct in not preferring any application to set aside the exparte award within a reasonable time and its approach to the Court with a delay of 1300 days.¶26

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The Management M/s.M.S.Builders, Aslam, S/o.Inayathullah, Mulla Street, Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.¶10
Mr.K.Venkateswaran
respondent
S.Lurthu¶13
respondent
The Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Vellore.¶42

Coram

AI extract

S. M. Subramaniammember¶6
C.Kumarappanauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 28 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 22 Jan 2026
Case no.: WA/183/2026
CNR: HCMA010844802023
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam C.kumarappan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S. M. Subramaniam C.kumarappan

Clara Secili.G Vs the District Collector
27 Jan 2026
The Management, Vs N Gnanasekar
27 Jan 2026
C.Gangarathinam Vs The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
27 Jan 2026
Dr.N.a.Priyadharshini Vs The District Collector
28 Jan 2026
N.Shanmugam Vs B.Murugesh and another
28 Jan 2026
V.Tamilarasi, Vs v.Balamurugan
28 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

The Management v. S.Lurthu, WA/183/2026 (MAD), decided on 28 January 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.18007 of 2014 dismissing the writ petition by which the appellants had challenged the exparte award dated 08.02.2011 of the Labour Court; the Single Judge found no application to set aside the exparte award was made within a reasonable time and noted a delay of 1300 days in approaching the Court.High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 21.03.2023
Labour Court passed an exparte award dated 08.02.2011, which the appellants challenged before the learned Single Judge.
The workman filed a Computation Petition in CP.No.248 of 2013 before the Labour Court.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S. M. Subramaniam and C.Kumarappan

Parties & counsel