M/S.WOOSU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD., M/S.R.GANESAN, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs M.THANGARAJ — WP/19852/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA011063562026
Filing Number
WP/79207/2026
Filing Date
30-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/19852/2026
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
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.M.THANGARAJ
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF
Case Summary: WP/19852/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order reinstating employee M. Thangaraj. The court found the company's claim of being denied opportunity to present evidence was "deliberate, palpably wrong," noting the Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments and the company had even approached the High Court with stay petitions, yet failed to adduce evidence despite explicit directions. After an 11-year pending case, the court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reject the company's last-minute request to reopen evidence and affirmed Thangaraj's reinstatement with full back wages and service continuity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
For Admission
Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender
-
30-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/19852/2026
Case Summary: WP/19852/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order reinstating employee M. Thangaraj. The court found the company's claim of being denied opportunity to present evidence was "deliberate, palpably wrong," noting the Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments and the company had even approached the High Court with stay petitions, yet failed to adduce evidence despite explicit directions. After an 11-year pending case, the court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reject the company's last-minute request to reopen evidence and affirmed Thangaraj's reinstatement with full back wages and service continuity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts