SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
G. Vellaichamy – Appellant
Versus
Regional Labour Commissioner – Respondent
WMP NO. 17600 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.Ilayaperumal
For the Respondents: Ravi Meenakshi Sundar

A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct a statutory labour authority to implement its own orders regarding the recovery of unpaid wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to enforce an order passed by the labour authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, regarding the recovery of unpaid salary dues. The petitioner, employed as a fabricator, had successfully obtained an order for wages and compensation against the employer and a principal entity, which remained unimplemented despite repeated representations. The Court, observing the submissions of both sides, determined that the authority must fulfill its statutory obligations to execute its previous findings. The primary issue brought before the Court was whether the labour authority is mandated to enforce its own order for wage recovery under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court reasoned that once a valid order for payment of wages has been passed by the competent authority, the failure of parties to comply necessitates timely administrative action for implementation. The ratio decidendi rests on the principle that the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, may direct statutory authorities to perform their duties in accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and implement the order dated 19.05.2025 within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. failure to implement a wage recovery order granted by a labour authority constitutes a valid ground for seeking a writ of mandamus. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court may direct statutory authorities to resolve representations and implement existing orders within a fixed period to ensure legal compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to implement his order passed in claim application No.40 / PWS / 14 / 2025, dated 19.05.2025 to recover the petitioners’ wages in accordance to the payment of Wages Act, 1936.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner worked as a Fabricator at the site of 2nd respondent who is under the control of the 3rd respondent. For non payment of salary dues, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the 1st respondent/Labour Commissioner against the respondents 2 and 3. After issuing due notice to respondents 2 and 3, the 1st respondent passed an order directing the 2nd respondent, to pay a sum of Rs.43,000/- along with one time compensation of Rs.43,000/-, totalling Rs.86,000/- and it also directed the 3rd respondent to implement the abovesaid order. Since the said order was not implemented, the petitioner sent representation dated 06.02.2026 to the respondents 2 and 3 calling upon them to comply with the order of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, also, by his notice dated 05.03.2026, called upon the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 to appear for further proceedings , but the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to appear. The 1st respondent also assured the petitioner that he will take necessary action to recovery petitioner’s wages as per the orders passed by the 1st respondent.

However, no action was taken till date. Hence the present writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the first respondent will consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2026 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.02.2026 and pass orders to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 19.05.2025 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 6.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top