Management challenged a Labour Court reinstatement award claiming it was denied opportunity to adduce evidence. The High Court found multiple adjournments and chances had been granted over 11 years and dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere under Article 226.
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 No. 19833 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 19833 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.30035 of 2021
M/s.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Arun Kumar, No.130, Narasingapuram Village, Perambakkam post, Tiruvallur – 631402.
..Petitioner
Vs
S.Kanniyappan
..Respondent
PRAYER - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 in ID No.195/2015 passed by II Additional Labour Court, at Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Ganesan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Gokul Prasanth
__________ Page1 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2026 in I.D.No.195/2015 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
Page2 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
evidence. In the absence of such opportunity being given or in the event of one of the parties to the lis being absent, the procedure as contemplated under order
XVII C.P.C., has to be followed. The counsel further submits that if at all the
Management has failed to adduce any evidence, exparte orders ought to have been passed, however the Court had passed orders on merits, which is contrary to Order XVII Rule 2 and 3 of C.P.C. The learned counsel therefore submits that for the reason of not granting any opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence, the order passed by the Labour Court has to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court for the limited purpose of granting opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence.
respondent/workmen submits that the Labour Court has granted ample opportunity to the Management, but the Management failed to adduce evidence, as such the case was protracted for nearly 10 years. Having granted several opportunities to the Management, the Labour Court had thought it proper to dispose the case on merits on 06.04.2026. Hence, there is no scope for the Management to seek remand the case.
__________ Page3 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
Page4 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
reject the application of the Management to adduce evidence. The refusal of the Labour Court, dismissing the application to reopen the evidence of the Management is also extracted in the impugned order, which speaks volumes of the conduct of the Management. Hence the ground urged by the learned counsel for the Management that no opportunity was given to adduce evidence, cannot be accepted. The only ground on which the counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order is that the Management was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence.
Page5 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
interfere if there are any violations of the Principles of Natural Justice or if any orders are passed contrary to any law. No such grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
K.SURENDER, J. 03-06-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GSA
__________ Page6 of 7
WP No. 19833 of 2026
K.SURENDER, J.
GSA
WP No. 19833 of 2026
03-06-2026
__________ Page7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court's award in I.D.No.195/2015 should be quashed on the ground that the Management was denied an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Whether the High Court under Article 226 could interfere absent violation of natural justice or law.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s. Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
S. Kanniyappan
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
