WP No. 48920 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24/7/2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 48920 of 2025 Shankar … Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary Labour & Employee Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Labour Commissioner Labour Welfare Building Teynampet, Chennai 6. 3. Employees Provident Fund Organisation rep. By Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Royapettah High Road, Chennai 14. 4. The Deputy Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Sterling Road, Chennai 34. 5. Vadivelan Agencies rep. By its Proprietor – Mr.Vadivelan 14 Medavakkam Main Road Ullagaram, Puzhuthivakkam Chennai 91. … Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose the petitioner’s representation dated 2/5/2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 48920 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 4 For petitioner … Mr.M.J.Nissar Ahmed For respondents … Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy Government Counsel for R.R.1 and 2. No appearance for R.3 Mr.K.Siddharth for R.4 Mr.K.Magesh for R.5 - - - - - O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to dispose the petitioner’s representation dated 2/5/2025. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was thrown out from the services of the fifth respondent. Hence, the petitioner had sent a representation dated 2/5/2025 to the respondents. Since the same has not been considered so far, petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.J.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy, Government Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.K.Siddharth, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the third respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 48920 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 4 4. From the materials available on record, it could be deduced that there is no permanent employee working in fifth respondent agency. Moreover, the fifth respondent is a small proprietory concern and only seven persons are working in the said firm. Since the petitioner is not a regular employee, he cannot demand wages and other benefits. In such a view of the matter, the allegations made against the fifth respondent are baseless and the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum seeking his rights against the fifth respondent. No costs. (K.SURENDER J) 24th July, 2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mvs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 48920 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 4 K.SURENDER,J mvs. To 1. The Secretary Labour & Employee Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Labour Commissioner Labour Welfare Building Teynampet, Chennai 6. 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Royapettah High Road, Chennai 14. 4. The Deputy Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Sterling Road, Chennai 34. 5. The Proprietor – Mr.Vadivelan Vadivelan Agencies 14 Medavakkam Main Road Ullagaram, Puzhuthivakkam Chennai 91. WP No. 48920 of 2026 24/7/2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis