Disposed

N.Nataraj, v. the Chairman

Madras HC24 Feb 2015WP/18431/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to regularize the petitioner's services as a contract worker. The Court directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within three months. The petition was disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2012 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

N.Nataraj, Vs the Chairman — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.18431 of 2012

¶6

1 N.NATARAJ [ PETITIONER ] Vs. 1 THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NO.800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2. 2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NAMAKKAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NAMAKKAL NAMAKKAL DISTRICT-637001. [ RESPONDENTS ] Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2012 within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel For Respondents : No appearance O R D E R

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents, inspite of printing the name of the respondents in the cause list.

¶8

The petitioner has come up with a grievance that inspite of his functioning as Contract Worker under the second respondent with effect from March 1995, his services were not regularised. According to the petitioner, similarly placed Contract Labourers were all regularised in service. However, no such action was taken in his case. The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.03.2012, requesting the second respondent to consider his case on merits. Since there was no follow up action taken by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶9

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

¶10

The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.03.2012 on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the representation dated 30.03.2012 along with a copy of this order so as to enable the second respondent to dispose of the representation within the aforesaid period.

¶12

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ajr
To
1 THE CHAIRMAN
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
NO.800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2.
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
NAMAKKAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
NAMAKKAL
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT-637001.
1 cc to Mr.C.Samivel, Advocate, sr. 10687
W.P.No.18431 of 2012
BR (CO)
kk 6/3

¶13

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

N.Nataraj, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Nataraj, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.B.R. Menon Vs M.Ganasekaran

R.Kumar Vs the Managing Director

K.Balasubramanian Vs Pradip v.Philip I.P.S

K.Jayapal, Vs the Chairman

V.Venkata Pradeep Vs the Accountant General

D.Sampoornam Vs The State of Tamilnadu