M/S.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., R.Ganesan, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs M.Rajesh kumar — WP/19888/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011075952026

Filing Number

WP/80250/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19888/2026

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

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

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

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M.Rajesh kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/19888/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's decision that reinstated workers with back wages and service continuity. The company claimed it was denied opportunity to present evidence, but the court found this claim "deliberate, palpably wrong"—the Labour Court had repeatedly granted adjournments and the High Court previously directed the company to adduce evidence, which it failed to do. After an 11-year pendency, the court found no violation of natural justice or law warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19888/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/19888/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's decision that reinstated workers with back wages and service continuity. The company claimed it was denied opportunity to present evidence, but the court found this claim "deliberate, palpably wrong"—the Labour Court had repeatedly granted adjournments and the High Court previously directed the company to adduce evidence, which it failed to do. After an 11-year pendency, the court found no violation of natural justice or law 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