Disposed

Palaniammal v. Rajmohan

Madras HC17 Apr 2015CONT P/803/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of a consent order upheld in W.P.No.844 of 2011, the court directed the respondent to issue a clear notice specifying dues payable. Upon receipt, the petitioner must remit funds within two weeks, after which the respondent must pay pension and gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to issue clear communication on dues; petitioner to remit within two weeks before pension/gratuity payout.

Palaniammal Vs Rajmohan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶3

Dated: 17.04.2015

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No. 803 of 2015
Palaniammal .. Petitioner
vs.
Thiru.Rajmohan,
General Manager,
State Express Transport Corporation,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2. .. Respondent
---
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt Courts Act praying to punish the respondent for
their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order and
direction dated 26.03.2014 in W.P.No.844 of 2011.
---

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ajoykhose For Respondent : Mr. P.Paramasivadoss

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.844 of 2011 dated 26.03.2014. The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent-Management

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ challenging the award passed by the first respondent-III

¶11

¶12

Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.19 of 2009, dated 30.10.2009. Pursuant to the compromise between the parties, the Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 26.03.2014, recording the compromise. The operative

¶13

portion of the order reads as follows :

¶14

of gratuity and pension should be paid by the respondentCorporation to the petitioner herein, who is the mother of the employee late V.Rajan. The petitioner alleges that till

¶15

date, the consent order has not been implemented.

¶16

respondent Corporation, on instructions, submitted that on 30.03.2015, a letter was sent to the petitioner, calling

¶17

upon her to pay certain arrears to the tune of about Rs.4,500/-, which was payable by her late son and since the dues have not been remitted by the petitioner, the pension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and gratuity could not be settled.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, till date no such communication has been received.

¶21

Without going into the controversy as to whether the communication was sent and received by the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondent to send one

¶22

more communication clearly indicating as to what are the

¶23

dues payable and the amount of dues. On receipt of the

¶24

said communication, the petitioner shall remit the same

¶25

within a period of two weeks and from the date of remittance of the said amount, the respondent Corporation shall pay the pension and gratuity in terms of the consent order dated 26.03.2014.

¶26

With the above direction, the Contempt Petition is closed.

¶27

ATR/DS

¶28

SD/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR(OS)

¶29

//Certified to be true copy//

¶30

Dated at Madras this the day of 2015.

¶31

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶32

SS/CO/20/02/2015

¶33

One CC to Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, Advocate, SR.5638

¶34

To Thiru.Rajmohan, General Manager, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

Palaniammal v. Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniammal v. Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sundar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Arivudaiyappan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M/S.Flextronics Technologies Vs Govenment of Tamilnadu

Professors Forum of Madras Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.K.Madhavachar & Sons Vs Mrs.Gayathiri

J.Nagabhushanam Vs Saidai Duraisamy