A merits judgment cannot be recalled for counsel’s absence; the remedy lies in further appeal.

T. Savadamuthu sought permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, claiming that he had worked as an overhead tank operator and completed 480 working days between 1 September 1996 and 31 August 1998.

The Inspector of Labour allowed his application, and the Town Panchayat’s writ petition challenging that order was dismissed by a Single Judge.

The Town Panchayat’s writ appeal was allowed on 26 June 2025 after the matter was heard in the absence of Savadamuthu’s counsel; the Division Bench concluded that the Town Panchayat’s activities and Savadamuthu’s tender-based engagement did not bring him within the Act.

Savadamuthu then applied to recall that decision, stating that his counsel had been held up in another court and seeking an opportunity to make submissions on the merits.

Whether the writ appeal judgment should be recalled because Savadamuthu’s counsel was absent when the appeal was heard and decided on its merits.

Whether Savadamuthu could use the recall application to reopen the merits of the writ appeal, or whether he had to pursue a further remedy under law.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a party’s counsel being absent when a matter is taken up for hearing does not, by itself, require the Court to recall a judgment decided on the merits; the Court may proceed with the hearing and decide the case on the record.

It also held that a party aggrieved by a merits decision of a co-ordinate Bench must pursue any further remedy available under law, rather than seek restoration of the appeal to re-argue it.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent for these propositions.

The Court noted that the appeal had been heard on 18 June 2025, reserved, and decided on 26 June 2025.

Savadamuthu’s counsel had made no request for the matter to be taken up later or for an opportunity to be heard before judgment was pronounced, and the recall application was filed only on 25 July 2025.

The Court treated counsel’s absence as a lapse attributable to Savadamuthu, not a reason to set aside the merits judgment.

Because the writ appeal had already been decided on its merits, allowing the application would effectively permit re-argument; the Court considered a further remedy under law to be the appropriate course.

It dismissed CMP(MD) No. 14512 of 2025.

It declined to reconsider the factual merits of the writ appeal, leaving Savadamuthu to pursue any further remedy available under law.