Madras High Court
N.Sethumadhavan vs The Management Of on 13 October, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.3133 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.3133 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.24030 of 2024
N.Sethumadhavan ... Appellant
Vs.
The Management of
Katsushiro Matex India (P) Ltd.
A 38 and 39, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center
Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kancheepuram District 602 105 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patents, praying to set
aside the order of the learned Judge in W.M.P.No.18842 of 2022 in
W.P.No.3541 of 2022, pronounced on 26.03.2024.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
for M/s.M.Karthikeyani
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravindran
Senior Counsel
Mr.P.Nehru
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 03:03:02 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
The appellant's claim under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, was rejected by the learned Single Judge only on the ground
that the appellant herein had not disclosed that he was running a contract
business till the year 2018, and therefore, by recording that the
suppression does not disclose bonafide, had rejected the claim. Under
Section 17B of the I.D. Act, the period for which the workman, whose
termination order has been set aside by the Court or his approval petition
under Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act, is rejected, to be entitled for the last
drawn wages, from the date on which the order is challenged either
before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.In this case, the rejection order of the approval petition was
challenged in the Writ Petition filed on 08.02.2022 in W.P.No.3541 of
2022. What is alleged to have not been disclosed before the Writ Court
was his contract business conducted till the year 2018. Admittedly, the
appellant had closed the business in the year 2018 itself, and in the
affidavit also it states that he was unemployed thereafter. After the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 03:03:02 pm )
Management had filed counter affidavit to the application filed seeking
for wages under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, the workman had filed a
rejoinder affidavit, wherein he had admitted that he was into contract
business till the year 2018 and thereafter he had closed it. He had also
filed supporting documents to that effect. The learned Single Judge,
however, has not taken note of the affidavit filed in rejoinder and had
recorded that there was no bonafide in his application. Even otherwise,
the relevant period to be taken into consideration of his unemployment
would be only from the date on which the Writ Petition is filed and not
the date prior to that, which aspect has not been appropriately dealt with
in the impugned order.
3.For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed in
W.M.P.No.18842 of 2022 in W.P.No.3541 of 2022 is set aside.
Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent /Management
to forthwith pay the appellant's last drawn wages from the date of filing
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 03:03:02 pm )
of the writ petition viz. 08.02.2022 till date, within a period of two (2)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4.In the result, the above Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.]
13.10.2025
kas
Index: Yes / No
Neutral Citation
Speaking / Non Speaking
To.
The Management of
Katsushiro Matex India (P) Ltd.
A 38 and 39, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center
Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kancheepuram District 602 105
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 03:03:02 pm )
