Madras High Court
WA/1193/2024 of A.Rathinam Vs The Chairman on 21 September 2026
WA No. 1193 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 1193 of 2024
and
CMP No.8664 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010160632024}
A.Rathinam
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman
TANGEDCO, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personal)
TANGEDCO, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Superintendent Engineer
TANGEDCO,
Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle, Perambalur.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in WP.No.4063 of 2021 dated 28.11.2023 and to allow the writ appeal.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.R.Dinesh
for Mr.G.Ilamurugu
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.Agam Legal
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 05:09:10 pm )
WA No. 1193 of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ appeal has been instituted by the writ petitioner. The writ petition has been instituted seeking regularization of the services of the appellant in TANGEDCO. The fact remains that the benefit of regularization is sought for by the appellant based on 12 (3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Writ Court found that it is a disputed issue and to be adjudicated before the competent Labour Court.
2. This Court is of the view that High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry and such disputed facts are to be adjudicated before the competent forum. The benefit of regularization is sought for by the appellant based on 12
(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the writ petition by itself is not entertainable and the appellant has to exhaust the remedy available under the labour law.
3. Granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Labour Court for redressal of his remedy, the writ order stands confirmed and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sli
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 05:09:10 pm )
WA No. 1193 of 2024
To
1. The Chairman TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personal) TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Superintendent Engineer TANGEDCO, Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle, Perambalur.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 05:09:10 pm )
WA No. 1193 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. sli WA No. 1193 of 2024 and CMP No.8664 of 2024 21-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 05:09:10 pm )