M/s.Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., R.Ganesan, V.NANDHA HARI MAHESWARAN,N.NAGARJUNA,N.Mahendra Babu,P.RATHIKA vs A.Sivakumar — WP/19891/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011075962026

Filing Number

WP/80251/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19891/2026

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.A.Sivakumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/19891/2026 Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's reinstatement order for employee A. Sivakumar. The court rejected the company's claim that it was denied opportunity to present evidence, finding that multiple adjournments were granted but the management deliberately failed to adduce evidence over an 11-year proceeding, then attempted to reopen evidence after arguments concluded. 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/19891/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/19891/2026 Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the Labour Court's reinstatement order for employee A. Sivakumar. The court rejected the company's claim that it was denied opportunity to present evidence, finding that multiple adjournments were granted but the management deliberately failed to adduce evidence over an 11-year proceeding, then attempted to reopen evidence after arguments concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case