M/S.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., M/S.R.GANESAN, N.NAGARJUNA,V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs S.Kumar — WP/19935/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA011063572026
Filing Number
WP/79208/2026
Filing Date
30-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/19935/2026
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, N.NAGARJUNA,V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA
Respondent(s)
-
1.S.Kumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF
Case Summary: WP/19935/2026 Decision: The High Court of Madras dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that set aside the respondent's dismissal and granted reinstatement with back wages and service continuity. Key Reasoning: The court found the management's claim of being denied opportunity to adduce evidence was "deliberate, palpably wrong." The Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments and opportunities; the management failed to present evidence despite prior High Court directions to do so and filed obstructive writ petitions. After 11 years of pendency, no grounds for interference existed under Article 226, as no violation of natural justice or law was established. 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/19935/2026
Case Summary: WP/19935/2026 Decision: The High Court of Madras dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order that set aside the respondent's dismissal and granted reinstatement with back wages and service continuity. Key Reasoning: The court found the management's claim of being denied opportunity to adduce evidence was "deliberate, palpably wrong." The Labour Court had granted multiple adjournments and opportunities; the management failed to present evidence despite prior High Court directions to do so and filed obstructive writ petitions. After 11 years of pendency, no grounds for interference existed under Article 226, as no violation of natural justice or law was established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts