M/S.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., M/S.R.GANESAN, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs Umadevi W/o.M.Jayaraman — WP/19560/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA011046662026
Filing Number
WP/77768/2026
Filing Date
28-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/19560/2026
Registration Date
13-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
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
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.Umadevi W/o.M.Jayaraman
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF
Case Summary: WP/19560/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that reinstated respondent Umadevi with back wages and continuity of service. Key Reasoning: The company claimed it received no opportunity to present evidence, but the court found this claim "deliberate, palpably wrong." Records showed the Labour Court repeatedly granted adjournments for the company to adduce evidence after dismissing its earlier writ petitions; the company failed to present evidence despite multiple opportunities. After 11 years of litigation, the court found no violation of natural justice principles and no grounds to interfere with the Labour Court's April 2026 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
For Admission
Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender
-
28-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/19560/2026
Case Summary: WP/19560/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that reinstated respondent Umadevi with back wages and continuity of service. Key Reasoning: The company claimed it received no opportunity to present evidence, but the court found this claim "deliberate, palpably wrong." Records showed the Labour Court repeatedly granted adjournments for the company to adduce evidence after dismissing its earlier writ petitions; the company failed to present evidence despite multiple opportunities. After 11 years of litigation, the court found no violation of natural justice principles and no grounds to interfere with the Labour Court's April 2026 order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts