Madras High Court
V.Gopalakrishnan vs The District Collector on 28 January, 2022
W.A.No.55 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.01.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.55 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.528 of 2022
V.Gopalakrishnan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Collectorate Compound,
Coimbatore.
2.The Tahsildar,
Mettupalayam Taluk,
Mettupalayam.
3.K.Vijayachandran
4.S.Murugesan
5.J.Arul Raj
6.N.Muthusamy
7.M.Hammed
8.S.Parameswaran
9.P.Muthaiah
10.R.Duraisamy
11.A.Venkatachalapathy
12.P.Kandasamy
13.V.K.Palanisamy
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
14.K.Namadevan
15.S.Selvaraj
16.K.Rajamani
17.P.N.Thangaraj
18.C.S.Gopalakrishnan
19.A.Vadivelu
20.K.Guruvayurappan
21.N.C.Ponmalai
22.K.M.Gopalan
23.S.Ambrose
24.A.Palanisamy
25.V.Natarajan
26.T.N.Murugesan
27.P.Shanmugasundaram
28.K.Nagaraj
29.R.Thiruvengadam
30.N.Muralidharan
31.P.Pargunaan
32.R.Sureshkumar
33.E.Murugesan
34.C.Murugan
35.R.Govindaraj
36.J.Abraham
37.P.Dhanasekaran
38.A.Guruvayurappan
39.V.K.Gopalakrishnan
40.S.Senthamizh Selvan
41.R.Ponnusamy
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
42.D.Rangasamy
43.P.Appadurai
44.R.Subbaiyan
45.P.Kumarasamy
46.M.Devarasu
47.R.Velsamy
48.T.Jesudoss
49.M.S.Thaniaslas
50.N.Kannappan
51.T.N.Nanjayan
52.R.Nagarajan
53.K.Mayilsamy
54.A.Ramachandran
55.V.Rangaraj
56.A.Sampath
57.V.M.Kandasamy
58.V.Selvaraj
59.K.Manicka Vasagam
60.S.Selvaraj
61.N.Devaraj
62.G.K.Krishnan
63.V.Gunasekaran
64.T.Ilangovan
65.M.Subramaniam
66.N.Selvaraj
67.R.Ramachandran
68.K.Srinivasan
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
69.R.Rajan
70.R.Subramaniyam
71.M.Chockalingam
72.T.N.Murugesan
73.P.Mohanraj
74.U.S.Selvaraj
75.G.Palanisamy
76.R.Bangarusamy
77.S.Palanisamy
78.B.Ravichandran
79.N.Rangaraj
80.P.K.Palanisamy
81.P.Kalichamy
82.N.Chinnasamy
83.P.Ramasamy
84.R.Selvan
85.R.Rajvelan
86.P.Rajendran
87.P.Nagaraj
88.S.Velmani
89.V.Mayilsamy
90.T.R.Duraisamy
91.K.M.Palanisamy
92.R.Ponnusamy
93.R.Mohanarangam
94.V.Balakrishnan
95.R.Mani
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
96.K.Velan
97.A.Krishnamoorthy
98.K.Sundaram
99.K.Raghu
100.R.Ramesh
101.B.S.Selvaraj
102.M.Mani
103.M.Duraisamy
104.V.Natraj
105.R.Sundaram
106.V.Vasudevan
107.T.Murugesan
108.A.Dasappan
109.R.Sarveswaran
110.K.Subramani
111.K.Arumugam
112.T.Rajendran
113.C.N.Chidambaranath
114.K.Kuppusamy
115.P.Udayakumar
(R3 to 115 are not necessary parties
in this writ appeal) ... Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.09.2021 made in W.P.No.23754 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Shankar
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 30
September 2021 recorded on W.P.No.23754 of 2013. This appeal is
by an unsuccessful writ petitioner.
2. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
has submitted that, the action of the State Authorities which was
impugned in the writ petition was in breach of various provisions of
law including Industrial Disputes Act so also the the Revenue
Recovery Act, with specific reference to Section 27 thereof. It is
submitted that the claim of the workmen needs to be settled but who
is liable to pay those dues, that distinction ought to have been kept in
view and having failed to do so, the impugned order is erroneous
which calls for interference. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant was the Managing Director of the
Company. His individual capacity is different than that of the
management of the company, coupled with the fact that in any case
the property, which was neither in the name of the company nor in
the name of the appellant could not have been brought within the
purview of the recovery proceedings and on that count also,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
interference was required which learned Single Judge refused and
therefore this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that,
as against this appellant/ writ petitioner, the other side is workmen,
who are more than 100. The company is closed for more than 25
years by this time. The workers have claimed their dues which the
competent forums have granted also by appropriate orders in their
favour and that has attained finality. It is under these circumstances,
coercive proceedings are initiated by the State Authorities, which is
the subject matter of the writ petition and in turn of this appeal. We
have taken into consideration the stand of the State as reflected in
the impugned order as contained in para 4, wherein there is
reference to the proceedings instituted by the daughter of the
present appellant also, in whose favour the property in question was
mischievously transferred. We have also noted that the learned
single Judge, on the basis of the material on record has arrived at
the satisfaction that the company and its management has not
satisfied the dues of the workmen under one or the other pretext.
We find that the satisfaction arrived at by learned single Judge, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
facts like this need not be interfered with by us. Though there can be
some record which may appear as giving some tool in the hands of
the appellant that notice was not properly served upon him, in our
view that itself would not make the impugned order unsustainable on
its overall consideration. Any interference in the impugned order
would only add to the miseries of the poor workman, which we are
not inclined to do. This appeal needs to be dismissed.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that some extension be granted in the time limit prescribed in the
impugned order. Since we have not even entertained this appeal, no
extension needs to be granted.
5. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.528 of
2022 is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
28.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
raa/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
To
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Collectorate Compound,
Coimbatore.
2.The Tahsildar,
Mettupalayam Taluk,
Mettupalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.55 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
raa
W.A.No.55 of 2022
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
