High Court · 2025

WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchto the impugned award dated 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 30.09.2019, 30.09.2019, 30.09.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019, 16.07.2019 and 16.07.2019, respectively, passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in ID.No.50 of 2014, ID.No.46 of 2014, ID.No.52 of 2014, ID.No.66 of 2014, ID.No.54 of 2014, ID.No.45 of 2014, ID.No.56 of 2014, ID.No.64 of 2014, ID.No.49 of 2014, ID.No.68 of 2014, ID.No.57 of 2014, ID.No.67 of 2014, ID.No.47 of 2014, ID.No.60 of 2014, ID.No.65 of 2014, ID.No.63 of 2014, ID.No.61 of 2014 and ID.No.51 of 2014, respectively, and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law AssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.T.Ravichandran[In all petitions]*****5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchWP(MD)Nos.11222, 11283 of 2021:-T.G.Subramani: Petitioner in WP(MD).11222/2021M.Karthick: Petitioner in WP(MD).11283/2021Vs.The Commissioner,Melur Municipality,O/o.Melur Municipality,Melur, Madurai District.: Respondent in both petitionsCOMMON PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the common award dated 16.07.2019 & 30.09.2019, respectively, passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in ID.No.53 of 2014 and ID.No.48 of 2014, respectively.For Petitioners: Mr.T.RavichandranFor Respondent: Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law Associates[In both petitions]*****6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchWP(MD)Nos.12613, 12902 of 2021:-The Commissioner,Melur Municipality,O/o.Melur Municipality,Melur, Madurai District.: Petitioner in both petitionsVs.T.G.Subramani: Respondent in WP(MD).12613/2021M.Karthick: Respondent in WP(MD).12902/2021COMMON PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned common award dated 16.07.2019 and 30.09.2019, respectively, passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in ID.No.53 of 2014 and ID.No.48 of 2014, respectively and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law AssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.T.Ravichandran[In both petitions]*****7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchWP(MD)No.19830 of 2021:-A.Suresh Kumar: PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administrative Directorate, 10th Floor, Town Administrative Office Campus, 75, Santom High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur, Madurai District.: RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proposal of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1969/2021/H1, dated 12.10.2021 to engage sweeper on outsourcing basis, without implementing the common award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in ID.No.45 to 68 of 2014 and quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.8/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchFor Petitioner: Mr.T.RavichandranFor Respondents: Mr.R.Baskaran,Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,Special Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law Associates for R.2*****WP(MD)No.25233 of 2023:-M.Murugan: PetitionerVs.1.The Regional Director (Municipality), 294, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur, Madurai District.: RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notification, vide Tender Reference No.9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch122/2023/E1 dated 06.02.2023 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to regularize the petitioner's service as permanent Sanitary Worker of the second respondent Municipality.For Petitioner: Mr.S.AlagusundarFor Respondents: Mr.R.Baskaran,Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,Special Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law Associates for R.2*****WP(MD)No.25983 of 2023:-1.Sevugamoorthi2.K.Manjula3.Pandiselvi4.Muthupandi @ Pandiammal5.M.Erulayee: PetitionersVs.10/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch1.The Regional Director (Municipality), 294, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur, Madurai District.3.Top Security Service, Rep. by Proprietor V.Manokar: Respondents[R.3 impleaded vide order dated 03.04.2025 made in WMP(MD)No.26424 of 2023 in WP(MD)No.25983 of 2023]PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notification, vide Tender Reference No.122/2023/E1 dated 11.10.2023 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, directing the second respondent to regularize the petitioner's service as permanent Sanitary Worker of the second respondent Municipality.11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchFor Petitioners: Mr.S.AlagusundarFor Respondents: Mr.R.Baskaran,Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,Special Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.K.R.Kishore Ramfor M/s.R.B.Law Associates for R.2*****COMMON ORDERThese writ petitions arise out of the awards passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in ID. Nos.45 to 68 of 2014, dated 16.07.2019 and 30.09.2019. The Sanitation Workers working in Melur Municipality had raised the said industrial disputes contending that, despite having been engaged from the year 2001 onwards without any break-in service, they were thereafter denied employment. The Labour Court, by the aforesaid awards, directed the Melur Municipality to reinstate the Sanitary Workers with 50% backwages and continuity of service.12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch2.Three sets of writ petitions are before this Court.2.1.The awards of the Labour Court have been challenged by the Municipality in one set of writ petitions, in WP(MD)Nos.22579, 23480 of 2019, 12613, 12902, 13229, 13230, 13231, 13260, 13261, 13262, 13263, 13264, 13265, 13266, 13267, 13268, 13269, 13270, 13273, 13274 of 2021. 2.2.The Sanitary Workers have filed a set of writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.21524 of 2019, 11222, 11283 of 2021 seeking a mandamus to implement the said awards. 2.3.Yet another batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.19830 of 2021, 25233, 25983 of 2023 has been filed challenging the proposals and tender notifications issued by the Municipality to hire workers on outsourcing basis, without implementing the Labour Court’s directions.3.Since all the writ petitions relate to the same issue arising from the awards passed in ID.Nos. 45 to 68 of 2014, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch4.The case of the Sanitary Workers is that they were engaged by the Municipality pursuant to resolutions of the Council and had continuously worked for 10 to 20 years. They are affiliated to a Trade Union under AITUC. The Municipalities were permitted to engage Sanitary Workers through resolutions and were further permitted to create new posts on consolidated pay, to be later regularised, as per G.O.Ms.No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.04.1997. This Government Order also enabled appointments through the Employment Exchange. A clarification was later issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 05.05.1998.5.Learned Counsel submitted that the workers were engaged either through Council resolutions or through Employment Exchange, initially on consolidated pay, and were eligible for regularisation depending on vacancies. In 2005, a policy decision was taken to engage Sanitary Workers through Self Help Groups. Salaries, thereafter, were routed through one of their colleagues. According to them, the workers continued to work under the supervision of Sanitary Inspectors and were always engaged by the 14/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchMunicipality. In this regard, reliance was placed on the evidence of MW1, Saravanan, Sanitary Inspector. 6.According to them, there was no contract with the workers, though they were projected as contract labourers. In fact, he submitted that sanitation work is perennial in nature and as such, it cannot be outsourced in view of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He has also relied on G.O.Ms.No.2082, Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.09.1998, whereby the Government prohibited engagement of contract labour for sweeping and scavenging in establishments employing 50 or more workmen (except Chennai Corporation).7.He further submitted that Self Help Groups cannot lawfully enter into manpower supply contracts, and in any event, any such engagement must comply with the Contract Labour Act. The alleged contractors had no licence, and no contract documents were produced before the Labour Court. According to the workers, Self Help Groups were projected as 15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchcontractors only to create sham and nominal records. The Labour Court, on analysing these aspects, rightly ordered reinstatement with backwages.8.Learned Counsel further argued that the Municipality, thereafter, issued a proposal in Na.Ka.No.1969/2021/H1 dated 12.10.2021 to engage 69 sweepers, 10 supervisors and 10 drivers on outsourcing basis, and a tender notification in Tender Ref. No.122/2023/E1 dated 06.02.2023 for solid waste management. It is contended that these actions were taken to defeat the workers’ rights in spite of the awards. Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.9.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that the workers were engaged only through contractors — Self Help Groups, such as Safaikaram, Vinoba and Bharathidasan till February 2008, and thereafter through a private agency named Exernet. Hence, there was no master – servant relationship with the Municipality.16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch10.They contended that supervision was done only through these agencies and the entire work was done under the control and supervision of the contractor. According to them, tenders were floated annually and the lowest tenderer was awarded the contract. Hence, the workers were never employees of the Municipality. 11.By relying upon G.O.Ms.No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.04.1997, they submitted that appointments should only be through Employment Exchange. Admittedly, none of the workers were appointed through Employment Exchange and hence, they cannot seek regularisation. Any backdoor appointment is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16. In this regard, reliance was made on the following decisions:-(i) Ramakrishna Kamat and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [AIR 2003 SC 1530];(ii) Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136];17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch(iii) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]; and (iv) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC 773].12.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials on record.13.The Labour Court, in its awards dated 16.07.2019 and 30.09.2019, allowed the industrial disputes on the following findings:-(1) all workers had been engaged since 01.04.2001 without break;(2) they were appointed pursuant to a municipal resolution and the posts are permanent;(3) they had completed 240 days in a year and 480 days in two years;(4) G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 30.04.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 05.05.1998 of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, enable engagement on consolidated pay followed by regularisation and prohibits recruitment through Employment Exchange until daily-wagers are regularised.18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch14.The sanitary workers were engaged from 2001 onwards. Self Help Groups entered the picture only from 2005 as per the letter of the Director of Municipalities dated 28.02.2005. It appears that the very same workers continued every year, first through Self Help Groups and thereafter through a private contractor. But, the fact remains that the alleged contracts were never produced before the Labour Court.15.To be noted, the evidence of MW1, a Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality, exposes that the workers were, in fact, under the control of the Municipality. The relevant portions are extracted as under:-“kDjhuh;fs; epakdk; rk;ke;jkhf NkYhh; efuhl;rpapy; jPh;khdk; ,aw;wg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. kDjhuh;fs; 3 Mz;Lfshf Ntiy nra;jhh;fs;. .. .. vjph;kDjhuh; efuhl;rp murhq;fj;jpd; cs;shl;rpj; Jiwiar; Nrh;e;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd; .. .. vf;]h;nel; vd;w jdpahh; epWtdj;jpy;jhd; kDjhuh;fs; Ntiy ghh;j;jhh;fs;. vjph;kDjhuh;jhd; Kjd;ik Ntiy mspg;gth; vd;why; rhpjhd;.”“NkYk; vjph;kDjhuh; kw;Wk; Ra cjtp FOtpdhy; kDjhuh;fspy; xUtiu jiyth; vdr; nrhy;yp mth; %ykhf 19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchrk;gsk; toq;fg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. epue;ju gzpahsh;fs; jpde;NjhWk; nra;af;$ba gzpiaj;jhd; kDjhuh;fs; nra;J te;jhh;fs;.”16.On these materials, it is evident that the workers were engaged through municipal resolutions and supervised by municipal officials. Their engagement cannot be termed illegal. Further, the alleged contracts with Self Help Groups were not produced. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the Municipality’s stand.17.A Self-Help group, by its very nature, is constituted for the collective empowerment and mutual advancement of its own members and not for the purpose of undertaking commercial ventures with a profit oriented objective. It engages in social and economic development of its own members through thrift, internal lending and capacity building. The activities of such groups are meant to remain community based rather than profit making. Hence, allowing such bodies to act essentially as manpower agencies is against the foundational purpose for which the Self Help 20/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchGroup's are set up.18.Be that as it may, since the Municipality claims that these workers were contract labourers, it would be pertinent to refer to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The Contract Labour Act, 1970 is a welfare legislation intended to curb exploitation of contract labour. Such contract labourers face various forms of exploitation such as arbitrary termination and not provided with benefits such as leave, pension, retirement benefits and poor working conditions. Hence, this legislation has adopted two measures to curb the abuses of employment of contract labour – the first one is to regulate employment of contract labour in certain fields and the second one is to allow the government to abolish it completely in other situations. The relevant portions from the Statement of Objects of this legislation are extracted as under:“The system of employment of contract labour lends itself to various abuses. The question of its abolition has been under the consideration of Government for a long time. In the second-five year plan, the Planning Commission made certain recommendations, namely, undertaking of studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of contract 21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchlabour, progressive abolition of system and improvement of service, conditions of contract labour where the abolition was not possible. The matter was discussed at various meetings of Tripartite Committees at which the State Governments were also represented and general consensus of opinion was that the system should be abolished wherever possible or practicable and that in cases where this system could not be abolished altogether, the working conditions of contract labour should be regulated so as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities. The proposed Bill aims at abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories as may be notified by appropriate Government in the light of certain criteria that have been laid down, and at regulating the service conditions of contract labour where abolition is not possible. ...”19.In line with the objective of regulating the working conditions and benefits for contract labourers, the Act mandates registration and licensing requirements for both the principal employer and the contractor. The principal employer using contract labourers are required to be registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. If such principal employer is not registered under the Act, such principal employer is not allowed to employ any contract labourers as per 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchSection 9 of the Act. Moreover, the Act also prescribes that the registered contractors registered under the act are required to provide essential basic amenities. Further, the contractors themselves are required to be licensed under Section 12 of the Act and the State of Tamil Nadu has framed the Tamil Nadu Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 for this purpose.20.The Self Help Groups in question, admittedly, had no registration under the Act and possessed no licence and provided no statutory facilities.21.It is also to be noted that Section 10(1) of the Act provides the appropriate government with the authority to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. This is to be done after consultation with the Central or State Board and after considering the nature of work, such as if it is perennial in nature. In exercise of this power, the State of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.No.2082, Labour and Employment dated 19.09.1998 which reads as 23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchunder:-“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Prohibition) Act 1970, (Central Act XXXVII of 1970), the Governor of Tamil Nadu after consultation with the State Advisory Board on Contract Labour and after having regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors in the establishments/factories referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of the said section, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the processes of sweeping and scavenging in the establishments/factories which are employing 50 or more workmen except Chennai Corporation.”22.The above notification was issued in the year 1998 itself by the State of Tamil Nadu. From the above notification, it is clear that contract labourers cannot be engaged for the sweeping and scavenging works by any establishment employing more than 50 persons. Even thereafter, the Melur Municpality, which is having more than 50 employees, claims that it had hired sanitation workers through so called Self Help Groups and private agencies. This is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Prohibition and Abolition) Act 1970. 24/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch23.In Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others [2001 (7) SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the workers are employed under a contract which is a mere ruse / camouflage in order to evade compliance with the beneficial provisions of the Act, then such employees should be considered to be regular employees of the principal employer and they must be regularised by the employer concerned. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:“125.The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: ... ... ... (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to 25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchregularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.”24.The material in this case clearly establishes that the alleged contracts were sham and nominal, created to evade compliance with statutory obligations.25.It is also pertinent to note that contract labourers cannot be 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchperpetually employed for works that are perennial nature. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 INSC 144], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Indian law disfavors contractual arrangements for works that are permanent in nature and the relevant portion is extracted as under:-“15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement.”26.Melur Municipality, being a State authority, is expected to be a model employer and not engage in the exploitation of workers. This Court draws support from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Workmen, Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. The 27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchManagement, Bhurkunda Colliery [2006 (3) SCC 297], wherein, it has been held as under:-“17. ... Also, In the matter of regularization, the main concern of the Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State being a model employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or the person concerned, as the case may be. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his services on a regular post and accordingly considers regularization.”27.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above precedents, this Court finds no infirmity in the awards of the Labour Court. The Melur Municipality is directed to comply with the awards passed in I.D. Nos.45 to 68 of 2014 dated 16.07.2019 and 30.09.2019, forthwith. The proposal in Na.Ka.No.1969/2021/H1 dated 12.10.2021 for outsourcing engagement of sweepers, supervisors and drivers is set aside. It is clarified that any future tender shall strictly comply with the Contract Labour 28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.In fine,●WP(MD)Nos.21524 of 2019, 11222, 11283 of 2021 stand allowed;●WP(MD)Nos.22579, 23480 of 2019, 12613, 12902, 13229, 13230, 13231, 13260, 13261, 13262, 13263, 13264, 13265, 13266, 13267, 13268, 13269, 13270, 13273, 13274 of 2021 stand dismissed; and●WP(MD)Nos.19830 of 2021, 25233, 25983 of 2023 stand disposed of.Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.Internet: Yes28.11.2025gkTo1.The Regional Director (Municipality), 294, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur, Madurai District.29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batch3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administrative Directorate, 10th Floor, Town Administrative Office Campus, 75, Santom High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.4.The Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur, Madurai District.30/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.(MD)No.21524 of 2019, batchB.PUGALENDHI, J.gkWP(MD)Nos.21524, 22579, 23480 of 2019,11222, 11283, 12613, 12902, 13229, 13230, 13231, 13260, 13261, 13262, 13263, 13264, 13265, 13266, 13267, 13268, 13269, 13270, 13273, 13274, 19830 of 202125233, 25983 of 202328.11.202531/31