Management Of Hyundai Motor v. T.Sudhakar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 01.11.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 31.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.Nos.739, 741, 752, 3743, 3746, 3752, 3798, 3800, 3761, 3850, 3853, 3831, 3838, 3782, 3793, 3795, 3806, 3811, 3842, 3772, 3819, 3846, 3858, 3216, 3221, 3223 & 3225 of 2021 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions Management of Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District-602 117.

...Petitioner in all WP's

Vs.

T.SUDHAKAR ... RESPONDENT in WP No.739 of 2021 S.KAMALAKANNAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.741 of 2021 V.UNNIKANNAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.752 of 2021 M.RAMANATHAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3216 of 2021 A.SARAVANAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3221 of 2021 P.KRISHNAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3223 of 2021 K.GNANAVEL ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3225 of 2021 G.MURUGAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3743 of 2021 P.VINCENT RAJ ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3746 of 2021 A.SIVARAJ ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3752 of 2021 R.SARAVANAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3798 of 2021 K.MATHIAZHAGAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3800 of 2021 A.N.SENTHILKUMAR ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3761 of 2021 T.NICHO CORERA ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3850 of 2021

R.MADHANKUMAR ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3853 of 2021 J.VADIVEL ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3831 of 2021 J.GNANAMURUGAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3838 of 2021 M.VENKATESHKUMARAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3782 of 2021 V.PRAKASH ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3793 of 2021 J.HUSSIAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3795 of 2021 K.MANIMUTHU ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3806 of 2021 R.KARTHIKEYAN ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3811 of 2021 K.VINOTHKUMAR ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3842 of 2021 K.ALLIDURAI ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3772 of 2021 S.BARATHIRAJA ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3819 of 2021 S.KUMARAVEL ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3846 of 2021 P.SAKTHIVEL ... RESPONDENT in WP No.3858 of 2021 Prayer in WP No.739 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A.No. 307 of 2019 in I.D.No.184 of 2010 on the file of the Honble Labour Court,Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.741 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A.No. 309 of 2019 in I.D.No.186 of 2010 on the file of the Honble Labour Court,Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.752 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A.No. 308 of 2019 in I.D.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Honble Labour Court,Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3216 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A. No. 320 of 2019 in I.D. No. 413 of 2010 on the file of the Honorable Labour Court, Kancheepuram quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3221 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A. No. 332 of 2019 in I.D. No. 724 of 2010 on the file of the Honorable Labour Court, Kancheepuram quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3223 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A. No. 322 of 2019 in I.D. No. 423 of 2010 on the file of the Honorable Labour Court, Kancheepuram quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3225 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24.03.2020 made in I.A. No. 331 of 2019 in I.D. No. 715 of 2010 on the file of the Honorable Labour Court, Kancheepuram quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3743 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.310 of 2019 in I.D.No.192 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3746 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.326 of 2019 in I.D.No.437 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3752 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.314 of 2019 in I.D.No.210 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3798 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.317 of 2019 in I.D.No.252 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3800 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.318 of 2019 in I.D.No.256 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3761 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.316 of 2019 in I.D.No.223 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3850 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.312 of 2019 in I.D.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3853 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.324 of 2019 in I.D.No.447 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3831 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.330 of 2019 in I.D.No.453 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3838 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.319 of 2019 in I.D.No.257 of 2010 on

the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3782 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.323 of 2019 in I.D.No.428 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3793 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.329 of 2019 in I.D.No.449 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3795 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.325 of 2019 in I.D.No.440 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3806 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.321 of 2019 in I.D.No.422 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3811 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.333 of 2019 in I.D.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3842 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.313 of 2019 in I.D.No.209 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3772 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari,

calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.327 of 2019 in I.D.No.429 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3819 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.315 of 2019 in I.D.No.215 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3846 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.328 of 2019 in I.D.No.448 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

Prayer in WP No.3858 of 2021 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common Order dated 24/03/2020 made in I.A.No.311 of 2019 in I.D.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Labour Court, Kancheepuram, quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Abdullah for all WP's For Respondent W.P.Nos.3743,3746,3761, 3800,3782,3806,3811,3819, 3846 and 3858 of 2021 :

Mr.T.N.Sudesh W.P.Nos.752,3831,3798,3793, 3795,3842,3772,3216,3221 and 3223 of 2021 :

Mr.T.N.Sudesh for Mr.R.Rengaramanujam W.P.Nos.739,3225,3838,3853, 3752 and 741 of 2021 :

No Appearance W.P.No.3850 of 2021 :

Not ready in notice

C O M M O N O R D E R All these Writ Petitions filed by the Management, arises out of the common impugned order dated 24.03.2020, whereby various applications filed by the workmen of the petitionerManagement under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "ID Act"] r/w. Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as "TN ID Rules"] were allowed, condoning the delay of 580 days in filing the applications to set aside the order of dismissal for default dated 21.11.2017 and restoring the disputes back to file of the Labour Court.

2. Apart from the Common Award, the facts and cause of action are one and the same in all these Writ Petitions and hence they are disposed off, through a common order.

3. The workmen of the petitioner-Management were dismissed from their services, challenging which they had raised Industrial Disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act, before the learned III Additional Judge, Labour Court, Chennai and on 21.11.2017, these disputes came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, the workmen had filed applications under Section 11(3) of the ID Act r/w. Rule 48 of the TN ID Rules, seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the Industrial Disputes. In the affidavit filed in support of these applications seeking for condonation of delay, it had been stated that the workmen had handed over the responsibility of following their respective cases to the counsel of the other workmen, who had also raised Industrial Disputes and whose cases were similar to that of these workmen.

Thereafter, the Industrial Disputes came to be dismissed for default on 21.11.2017, which was not informed to them. Subsequently, the Industrial Disputes of the other workmen came to be transferred to the Labour Court, Kancheepuram and an award has been passed in that cases on 29.05.2019. When the workmen came to know of the award passed in the cases of their co-workmen, they were informed that since the Industrial Disputes were transferred from Chennai to Kancheepuram, they had engaged some other counsel at Kancheepuram. In this background, the workmen had stated that when they contacted their erstwhile counsel, he had told them that he was not using his earlier mobile phone and therefore could not inform the workmen in time about the transfer of their applications.

The Labour Court, had taken into consideration this explanation rendered by the workmen in their affidavits and found it to be a sufficient reason for the delay in filing the applications for restoration. This apart, the Labour Court also held that under Rule 48(3) of the TN ID Rules, the workmen are required to assign the reasons in the form of an affidavit, which they had complied with, the onus is on the petitioner-Management to prove that the reasons for the delay is insufficient or in-genuine.

had failed to prove so. The Labour Court had also taken into consideration of the fact that among the batch of 120 workmen, some of the co-workers had obtained Awards from the Labour Court and therefore, denying consideration of the disputes of the present workmen on merits, would not be just or equitable. It is in this background that the delay was condoned and the Industrial Disputes were restored back to file.

4. The Industrial Disputes Act is a Labour Welfare Legislation and cannot be equated to that of other Service Laws. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., V. The Management and Others and 3 more appeals reported in 1973 (1) SCC 813, had held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, enacted by the legislature for the betterment of the employees. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "35. We cannot accept the extreme contentions advanced on behalf of the workmen and the employers. We are aware that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, Courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficial rule of construction.

If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on the section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred. ..."

5. It is also a settled proposition in the Law of Limitation that the power to condone the delay is a discretion vested with the Courts. Though such discretions are required to be exercised with caution, the High Courts would not normally interfere with such a discretion exercised. More so in matters relating to Labour Welfare Legislation. When the scales of justice stands balanced in a given case, the tilt to be exercised should be in favour of the poor workmen rather than the mighty Managements.

6. The Labour Court, while condoning the delay, had rightly taken into consideration the Awards passed in favour of some of the co-workers, who were similarly placed as that of the workmen herein and thought it fit to give them a chance of hearing on merits, rather than closing the doors of justice at the threshold. For this purpose, the Labour Court had also placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.33538 to 33545 & 33586 to 33591 of 2013, dated 25.10.2019. Thus, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in condoning the delay and restoring the Industrial Disputes.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management placed reliance on the decision of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., rep. by its Chairman, Tuticorin Vs. Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Madurai and another reported in 1990 (1) LLN 457 and submitted that, if a litigant had chosen to come to Court after a considerable delay for which he has no explanation, he has to blame himself for the matter to be thrown out without the merits to be considered. This case before the Hon'ble Division Bench arose under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, wherein the employee had filed an application to condone the delay of 285 days by citing the reason that he had fell ill. Thereafter, he had started to move after three months.

The reason assigned for the further delay was that he had developed chest pain and taken rest for 5 weeks and thereafter travelled to Nagercoil to attend to certain domestic matters. The Hon'ble Division Bench had taken note of the fact that when an employee is able to travel to 350 km distance to Nagercoil from his residence, what prevented him from going to the Appellate Authority which was 35 kms from his residence and therefore found that the Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and equity. The reasons assigned by the employee before the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot be equated to the reasons assigned by the workman in the present case for the delay.

Here, the reason assigned was that the workmen had handed over the responsibilities of following their respective matters to the co-workers and their earlier counsels, since they were not in a position to travel every time to Chennai, particularly, when they were dismissed from their jobs. The other reason assigned is that the Industrial Disputes with regard to the co-workers were transferred to Kancheepuram and they had engaged different lawyers and hence their lawyers did not communicate the status of the case to these workmen. Above all, the workmen' lawyer, had changed his mobile phones and therefore, not in a position to contact the workmen herein. All these reasons seems to be not only plausible but also satisfactory for the delay.

It requires to be borne in mind that the workers were dismissed from their employment and cannot be expected to continuously shuttle between their respective place of residences and Chennai for the purpose of following the case.

8. The learned counsel for the Management further placed reliance on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in 2014 (1) LLN 559 (SC) for the proposition that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside and that the Court has to see whether proper explanation has been given.

Likewise, he also placed reliance on the decision in Balwant Singh (Dead) V. Jagdish Singh and Others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 685 for the same purpose.

9. While the case in T.T.Murali Babu (supra) arose under Service Law pertaining to dismissal of a Junior Engineer, Balwant Singh's case (supra) dealt with the term "sufficient cause" as stipulated under the Civil Procedure Code. As stated earlier, the Industrial Disputes Act is a Labour Welfare Legislation and the principles laid down in Service Laws, as well as to the interpretation of the term "sufficient cause" under the Civil Procedure Code, cannot be applied to the case of a workman, who files an application for condonation of delay under the ID Act on a straight jacket formula to the Labour Laws. The criteria of consideration for condoning the delay is much more lenient in a Labour Welfare Legislation than any other law. Thus, these two decisions will not be helpful to the petitioner-Management.

10. The learned counsel for the workmen placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of L. Amarnath V. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichy and another passed in W.A.(MD) No.1046 of 2012, dated 01.12.2015, for the proposition that even an ex-parte award requires to be a speaking award. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the workmen, Rule 48(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules mandates the Labour Court to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, even when one of the party fails to attend the proceedings before the Labour Court.

11. For the sake of convenience, Rule 48(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 is extracted hereunder:- "48. Ex-parte Proceedings. -(1) If, without showing sufficient cause any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or the Arbitrator may proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented."

12. In the present case, the Labour Court, had dismissed the award for non prosecution without going into the merits in the following manner:- "Petitioner counsel present. But not ready for enquiry.

Respondent counsel present. The case has been pending for enquiry from 03.10.2012 and till date the enquiry has not been commenced by the petitioner and it seems that, the petitioner is not interested in pursuing his claim anymore before this Court. Hence, this Court feels that, there is no point in keeping this case on file without any effective progress. Hence, this petition is dismissed for non prosecution."

13. Thus, it is seen that the Labour Court had not chosen to address the issues in the dispute and without going into the merits, had dismissed the Industrial Disputes, which is opposed to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Division bench in L. Amarnath's case (supra). The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- "10. Even if we discard the question as to whether the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an application beyond 30 days of publication of the award, the appellant has to succeed on yet another ground. The award passed by the Labour Court, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant for non-prosecution, is not actually an award in the eye of law.

11. The entire award passed by the Labour Court reads as follows:

kDjhuUf;F vjph; kDjhuh; eph;thfk; gzpj;bjhlh;r ;rp kw;Wk ; gpd; rk;gsj;Jld; kPz;Lk ; ntiy tH';f cj;jutplf; nfhhp bjh/j/r/ 1947 gphpt[ 2 V(2) d; fPH; kDjhuuhy; jhf;fy ; bra;ag ;gl ;l jhth kDjhuh; M$hpy;iy vjph; kDjhuh; M$h; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; vtUk; M$uhftpy;iy. ,d;W tprhuizf;fhf ,e;j tha;jh nghlg;gl ;oUe;jJ. kDjhuh; M$hpy;iy. nghJkhd tha;g ;g [ tH';fg ;gl ;lJ. vdnt kDjhuUf;F tHf;if elj;Jtjpy; mf;fiu ,y;iy vd fUjg;gLfpwJ/ vdnt kDjhuhpd; jtWf;fhf ,j;bjhHpy; jfuhW jhth js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j ;bjhif Fwpj;J cj;jut [ VJk; ,y;iy 2008 k; Mz;L ork;gh ; jp';fs; 12k; ehs; vd;dhy; ,e;j jpwe;j bghJ ePjpkd;wj ;jpy ; mitawpa gfug;gl ;lJ/

12. Rule 48(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, mandates that if any party to the proceedings before the Labour Court fails to attend the proceedings, the Court or Tribunal may proceed as if the party has duly attended or had been represented. In other words, the Court ought to have gone into the merits of the case and passed an award. Therefore, the original award dated 12.12.2008 itself is not an award in the eye of law and de hors the first question, this was also liable to be set aside."

14. In the light of the above observations, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned common order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Kancheepuram. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stands dismissed. The Labour Court shall endeavor to dispose of the Industrial Disputes pertaining to all the respondents/workmen herein in I.D.Nos.184, 185, 186, 192, 197, 203, 209, 210, 215, 223, 252,

256, 257, 413, 422, 423, 428, 447, 440, 437, 429, 448, 449, 453, 715, 724 of 2010 & 11 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, atleast, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While passing such final awards in the said Industrial Disputes, the Labour Court, Kancheepuram shall also take into account the awards passed in the case of co-workers of the respondents/workmen, whose cases were similar in nature. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are closed, if any. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar DP To The Labour Court, Kancheepuram.

+1cc to Mr.D.Abdullah, Advocate SR. No.5525 +1cc to Mr.R.Rengaramanujam, Advocate, S.R.No.6209[28/04/2022] W.P.Nos.739, 741, 752, 3743, 3746, 3752, 3798, 3800, 3761, 3850, 3853, 3831, 3838, 3782, 3793, 3795, 3806, 3811, 3842, 3772, 3819, 3846, 3858, 3216, 3221, 3223 & 3225 of 2021 SRA (CO) PR (11/02/2022)