Dismissed

All India R.M.S./M.M.S.Assis- v. Union of India, Ministry of

Madras HC13 Oct 2017WP/13942/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to announce check-off system results and recognize the petitioner association. The court dismissed the petition for want of instructions due to undelivered service notices.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for want of instructions due to failed service of notices.

All India R.M.S./M.M.S.Assis- Vs Union of India… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.10.2017

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.No.13942 of 2004

¶5

All India R.M.S./M.M.S. Assistant Superintendents

¶6

and Inspectors Association, rep. by its General Secretary. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Union of India, Ministry of Communication, rep. by its Secretary, Dak Bahavan, New Delhi-1.

¶9

Union of India,

¶10

Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Personnel, New Delhi.

¶11

The Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-1.

¶12

The Director (Staff Relations), Department of Posts,

¶13

Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-1.

¶14

The Chief Post Master General,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2. ... Respondents

¶16

This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to announce the results of the check off system conducted in December, 2000 and thereby recognize the petitioner association and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner association to participate in the trade union activities and also in the meetings.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Rameshkanna For Respondents : Mr.D.Simon, CGSC

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to announce the results of the check off system conducted in December, 2000 and thereby recognize the petitioner association and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner association to participate in the trade

¶20

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

¶21

union activities and also in the meetings.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has intimated to the petitioner, but the postal endorsement taken from the internet shows that they are attempted to deliver the letter, but could not be done as the door was locked. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed for want of instructions. No Costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

ASST. REGISTRAR

¶25

/TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR To 1. Union of India, Ministry of Communication, rep. by its Secretary, Dak Bahavan, New Delhi-1. 2. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Personnel, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-1. 4. The Director (Staff Relations), Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-1. 5. The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-2.

¶26

+1 CC to Mr. N.R.Rameshkanna Advocate SR.NO.73892

¶27

W.P.No.13942 of 2004 VC (11/11/2017)

¶28

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

All India R.M.S./M.M.S.Assis- v. Union of India, Ministry of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India R.M.S./M.M.S.Assis- v. Union of India, Ministry of

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

Mrs.Marimuthu, Vs The Commissioner

R.Kunjammal Vs District Collector

A.M.Rajan Vs The Corporation of Chennai

Dr.a.Dhava Palani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.Natesan Vs the Commissioner

Nirmala Theatre Rep by Its Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu Rep by