M/S.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., M/S.R.GANESAN, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs M.Senthil — WP/19938/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011046632026

Filing Number

WP/77765/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19938/2026

Registration Date

15-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Labour ( 95 )

Sub-Category

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., M/S.R.GANESAN, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M.Senthil

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 19938/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that reinstated employee M. Senthil with back wages and service continuity. The court rejected the company's claim that it was denied opportunity to present evidence, finding that the Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments but the company failed to adduce evidence despite High Court directions to do so. After 11 years of litigation, the court upheld the Labour Court's final order on merits, finding no violations of natural justice principles warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19938/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 19938/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that reinstated employee M. Senthil with back wages and service continuity. The court rejected the company's claim that it was denied opportunity to present evidence, finding that the Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments but the company failed to adduce evidence despite High Court directions to do so. After 11 years of litigation, the court upheld the Labour Court's final order on merits, finding no violations of natural justice principles warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case