The Management Of Hypro Chains Private Ltd., v. The Presiding Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and CMP.No.27774 of 2025 The Management of Hypro Chains Private Limited, Ranipet ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore District, Vellore 2.N.Gunasekaran 3.S.Baskaran 4.G.Kathavarayan 5.P.Dayalan 6.M.Jayavelu 7.P.Jayapal L.Babu (deceased) 8.M.Karuppaiah 9.V.Desingu Mani (deceased) 10.V.Mathiazhagan

11.P.Ravi 12.K.Munuswamy 13.B.Renuka 14.B.Balaji 15.B.Latha 16.B.Prabhu (R13 to R16 are LRs of 8th respondent) 17.M.Prema 18.M.Shanmugam 19.M.Nirmala (R17 to R19 are LRs of 11th respondent) ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order to allow the above Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.41433 of 2016.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Arumugam For Respondents : R1 - Labour Court

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J) This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.41433 of 2016.

2. Admittedly, the Management had not challenged the original award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.291 to 304 of 2000, dated 20.11.2003,

but had only challenged the consequential order passed in the Computation Petition filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apparently, the award passed by the Labour Court, granting back wages, has become final and the computation has also been made with regard to the workmen's entitlement.

3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the Management before us is that the workmen are not entitled for the entire non employment period. Such a ground is unavailable to the counsel for the Management to raise at this stage, particularly when he has not challenged the award, granting back wages.

4. This apart, the order passed in the Writ Petition also appears to be a consent order, wherein the learned counsel for the Management had represented before the learned Single Judge that they were willing to pay 50% of the compensation amount. Having conceded before the learned Single Judge to pay 50% of back wages, it would not be now open to them to challenge the same before us.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and R.SAKTHIVEL , J.

Anu

5. In the light of the above findings, we find no merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J] 19.11.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Anu To The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore District, Vellore and CMP.No.27774 of 2025