Remanded

Lakshmi W/O Arumugam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Jul 2015WP(MD)/10359/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench, sitting as a single judge, passed a common order dismissing two writ petitions filed by families of deceased labourers. They sought mandamus to compel the District Collector and Taluk Tashildar to initiate recovery proceedings against the employer for unpaid compensation awards dated 2009 and 2010.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to complete recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent within six weeks.

Lakshmi W/O Arumugam, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 28.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.10359 and 12596 of 2015

¶7

Lakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10359/2015 Sornam .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.12596/2015 Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.The Tashildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

3.Subramanian @ Narayanan ..Respondents in both WPs

¶11

Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.10359/2015 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondent to complete the recovery proceeding against the third respondent as per Na.Ka.No.A1/771/09 dated 30.12.2009 within stipulated time by this Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.12596/2015 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to complete the recovery proceeding against the third respondent as per Na.Ka.No.KA4/4703/10 dated 19.02.2010 within stipulated time by this Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶13

For Petitioner in both Wps : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents in both Wps : Mr.S.Bharathi Government Advocate ************

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek for a Mandamus directing the first and second respondent to complete the recovery https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceeding against the third respondent as per Na.Ka.No.A1/771/09 dated 30.12.2009 and Na.Ka.No.KA4/4703/10 respectively.

¶16

¶17

It is the specific case of the petitioners that they filed claim petitions in W.C.Nos.23 and 24 of 2004 respectively before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, claiming compensation for the death of their sons. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli allowed the said claim petitions and directed the third respondent to deposit compensation amount of Rs.3,37,830/- to each cases, which was not complied by the third respondent. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour issued notices in Na.Ka.No.A1/771/09 and Na.Ka.No.KA4/4703/10 and directed to deposit the amount, if otherwise, the recovery proceedings by the first and second respondents would be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. Even thereafter, the third respondent did not pay the amount but no recovery proceedings were initiated. Hence, the petitioners have come before this Court.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' families are below poverty line and because of untimely death of their sons, they have no income and starving for their livelihood. Since the award amount has not been disbursed, the petitioners have come before this court with the relief as stated supra.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that necessary action would be initiated as per the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/771/09 and Na.Ka.No.KA4/4703/10, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances that the cases are of the year 2008, the amount of compensation has not been disbursed so far and no recovery proceedings were also initiated, the first and second respondents

¶21

are directed to complete the recovery proceedings against the third respondent as per Na.Ka.No.A1/771/09 and Na.Ka.No.KA4/4703/10, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the above direction, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶29

2.The Tashildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

+1cc to Special Government Pleader Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai in SR.No. 42225.

¶31

+2cc to M/S. M.Ramu, Advocate in SR.No 42104, 42102

¶32

TS/31.07.2015/2P - 6C

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)Nos.10359 and 12596 of 2015

¶35

28.07.2015

Lakshmi W/O Arumugam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi W/O Arumugam, v. the District Collector

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

R.K Raja, Vs the Director of Fisheries

V. Muneeswaran, Vs the Inspector General

M/S. Vedanta Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Smr)

K.Imbran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Repd. by

S.Selvaraj Vs the District Collector -Cum-

Narayanavadivu, Vs the Regional Transport