Disposed

P.Murugan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2016WP/42760/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the Tahsildar (Second Respondent) to implement the recovery order of the District Collector (First Respondent) regarding a Labour Court award, to be completed within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Second Respondent was directed to implement the First Respondent's order dated 06.01.2014 regarding Labour Court award recovery within three months.

P.Murugan, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.42760 of 2016

¶6

P.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Shozhinganallur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus,
directing the second respondent to implement the order passed by
the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.319/2014/u2, dated
06.01.2014 within a stipulated time.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy
For Respondents: Mr.A.Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.319/2014/u2, dated 06.01.2014 within a stipulated time.

¶10

The case of the petitioner is that his father, viz. Pachaiappan @ Kasi, who was working as a Periyaal in a Building Construction and as a Watchman during night hours, died on 13.05.2008, owing to the injuries sustained in the construction site. In that regard, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai seeking compensation for the death of his father and after enquiry, an award was passed on 28.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.3,01,840/together with interest at 12% per annum, payable by the employer.

¶11

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

¶12

Since the award amount was not deposited by the employer, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to recover the award amount and the 1st respondent, vide letter dated 06.01.2014, directed the 2nd respondent to initiate revenue recovery proceedings and realize the amount awarded by the Labour Court. Despite the said proceedings, since no action is taken by the 2nd respondent to implement the order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ Petition.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court directs the 2nd respondent to implement the order
dated 06.01.2014 passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings
Na.Ka.319/2014/u2, after giving notice to the parties concerned,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
aeb
To:
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram.
2. The Tahsildar,
Shozhinganallur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
+1 cc to Mr.C.Munusamy Advocate sr 71892
+1 cc to Government Pleader High Court Madras
sr 72232
W.P.No.42760 of 2016

¶15

aa02/01/2017

¶16

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

P.Murugan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugan, 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

Dr.S.Deepak, Vs The Director

M.Kalimuthu, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Subha, Vs The Joint Secretary (South)

C.Kuppusamy, Vs The District Collector

P.Devi, Vs The Tahsildar

Sivakami, Vs The District Collector