CRP/3377/2025 of Deputy Registrar Vs Krishnan
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
&
CMP.No.18513 of 2025
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies (Non Credit),
Kuralagam, Chennai 600 104
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Krishnan
S/o.Raman, Chintamani Illam, No.6, 5th Cross
Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Porur,
Chennai -600 116.
2. The Management of DMS Staff Canteen
DMS Compound Government Officials Co op.
Canteen, Teynampet, Chennai .
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
praying to strike off the Execution Proceedings as against the Petitioner in E P
No. 10 of 2022 in CP No. 606 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Labour C ourt,
Chennai and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mrs. R. Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu for
P.Ganesha Murthy
for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page2 of 7
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the Execution
Proceedings as against the Petitioner in EP No. 10 of 2022 in CP No. 606 of
2014 on the file of I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present Civil R evision
Petition is as follows:
(i) The 1st respondent herein/employee raised an industrial dispute in
I.D.No.539 of 1989 against the Management of DMS Staff Canteen, DMS
Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-6 challenging his dismissal from service. By
order dated 06.08.1990, the said ID was allowed in favour of the 1 st respondent
and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent filed C.P.No.148 of 1991 claiming
his back wages till 31.10.1990 and thereafter, he filed CP.No.606 of 2014
claiming an amount of Rs.45,07,679 towards his back wages.
(iii) In C.P.No.148 of 1991, the Labour Court, by its order dated
24.01.1992 directed the respondent therein to pay Rs.28,450.60 to the 1 st
respondent/employee. In CP.No.606 of 2014, by order dated 10.12.2015, the I
Addl. Labour Court, Chennai ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.45,07,679/- towards wages and other benefits.
(iv) For executing the order passed in CP.No.606 of 2014, the employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page3 of 7
has filed E.P.No.195 of 2016 against the petitioner, wherein, the Labour C ourt,
by order dated 10.10.2017, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,07,679/- on or
before10.11.2017, failing which, attachment for movables described in the
schedule will follow.
(v) Since the petitioner has not implemented the order, the 1st
respondent/employee has filed E.P.No.10 of 2022 seeking arrest of Deputy
Registrar (N.C) , Co-operative Societies, Chennai.
(vi) Aggrieved by the petition seeking arrest of the petitioner, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. The learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the petitioner would submi t
that the 1st respondent/employee has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.539
of 1989, as against the DMS staff Canteen, DMS Compound, Teynampet and
the said petition was allowed in his favour and an award w as passed on
06.08.2019. For execution of the award passed earlier, the 1 st
respondent/employee has filed E.P.No.195 of 2016 and the same was disposed
of by the Labour Court on 10.10.2017 directing the petitioner to settle the
wages and benefits, failing which attachment will follow. Since the wages and
benefits were not settled, again, the respondent filed the present impugned
E.P.No.10 of 2025 before the Labour Court, Chennai seeking civil arrest of the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page4 of 7
4. He further submitted that in fact, the petitioner is not a party to the
Industrial Dispute proceedings and the subsequent proceedings initiated in
C.P.No.148 of 1991, C.P.No.606 of 2014 and E.P.No.10 of 2022. The 1 st
respondent/employee has worked only in a private canteen and he was
dismissed from private canteen on 15.10.1988 and a Co-operative canteen w as
registered in the same place on 20.01.1992. In ID.No.539 of 1989 and
C.P.No.148 of 1991, the employer was shown only as ‘ Management, DMS Staff
Canteen, DMS Compound, Teynampet Chennai, whereas in C.P.No.606 of
2014, the address of the respondent was shown as Management, DMS Staff
Canteen (DMS Valaga Arasu Aluvalargal Kooturavu Arundagam) Teynampet,
Chennai. (i.e.,) DMS Compound Government Officials Cooperative Canteen
which is different from each other.
5. It is his further submission that the Labour Court did not consider the
fact that the ‘Government Officials Co-operative Canteen Ltd” , DMS Campus
was registered only on 20.01.1991 and the case of the 1 st respondent is with
respect to a private canteen run in the same place by a private individual
between 31.01.1983 and 15.10.1988. When a person is not a party in the ID
proceedings, filing Execution Petition against him is not a sustainable one,
hence, the EP itself is misconceived. Accordingly, he prayed for a llowing the
Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page5 of 7
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the
earlier staff canteen was run by the in charge of the person under the control of
the petitioner and now the staff canteen was taken over by the present petitioner,
thereby, the present EP is filed against the petitioner. Accordingl y, he prayed
for passing appropriate orders.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as lear ned counsel
for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8. Perusal of records, it is seen that C.P.No.606 of 2014, was filed
against the Management, DMS Staff Canteen (DMS Valaga Arasu Aluval argal
Kooturavu Arundagam) Teynampet, Chennai. (i.e.,) DMS Compound
Government Officials Cooperative Canteen, whereas, I.D.No.539 of 1989 a nd
C.P.No.148 of 1991 was filed against the ‘Management, DMS Staff Canteen,
DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai. It is also revealed from the records that
the petitioner society was formed only on 20.12.1991 and not in existence
when the 1st respondent/employee was working from 31.01.1983 to 15.10.1988,
pertaining to which period, the 1 st respondent/employee has raised ID against
his removal from service. Thus it is apparent that when a person is not a
party in the ID proceedings, filing Execution Petition in pursuance of ID
proceedings against such person is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned
EP is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page6 of 7
9. In view of the above, the impugned E.P.No.10 of 2022 initiated against
the petitioner is set aside . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petit ion is allowed.
However, liberty is granted to the respondent to work out the reme dy in the
manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
02-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
msr
To
1. I Additional Labour Court, Chennai
2. The Management of DMS Staff Canteen
DMS Compound Government Officials Co op.
Canteen, Teynampet, Chennai .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
__________
Page7 of 7
M.DHANDAPANI J.
msr
CRP No. 3377 of 2025
&
CMP.No.18513 of 2025
02-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis