Disposed

Harrisons Malayalam Limited, v. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep

Madras HC4 May 2017WP/19468/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted that respondent employees of the petitioner became permanent or ceased employment during the writ petition's pendency. The court accepted the counsel's submission that no further adjudication is required and closed the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition closed with no order as to costs.

Harrisons Malayalam Limited, Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.19468 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.24310 of 2003

¶6

Harrisons Malayalam Limited
Wentworth Estate
Cherambadi
Gudalur-643 205. .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government
Labour and Employment Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Inspector of Plantations
Pandalur
Nilgiris.
3.S.Pandian
4.K.Ganesan
5.N.Rajagopalan
6.C.Thangaraj
7.Muthulakshmi
8.Jaya
9.Selvaraj
10.Pathumma
11.Ameeza
... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of CertiorarI, to call for records on the file of the second respondent leading to the impugned order in Na.Ka.11/2000 dated 27.02.2003 and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Vijayan for

¶9

M/S.King and Partridge

¶10

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

¶11

For R1 and R2 ... Mr.K.Dhananjeyan Spl.G.P. for R1 to R2

¶12

For R3 to R11 ... M/S.Aiyar and Dolia

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo on behalf of the petitioner today, on 04.05.2017. Para-1 and 2 of the memo are extracted hereunder:

¶14

It is submitted that the present writ petition is filed against the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.11/2000 dated 27.02.2003.

¶15

were the were the recei the s	2. It is submitted that respondents No.3 to 11 employed in the petitioners' Estate. During pendency of the writ petition, two of them made permanent and the rest i.e. seven left services of the petitioner and they had also ved their terminal benefits. The details of ame are set out below:-
Respondent No.	Name Date of permanency Date of leaving the services of the petitioner Company
3	S.Pandian 31.10.2003
4	K.Ganesan 31.12.2007
5	N.Rajagopalan 31.03.2007
6	C.Thangaraj 01.07.2008 Working as Permanent monthly paid worker
7	Muthulakshmi 31.05.2011
8	Jaya 31.12.2008
10	Pathumma 30.09.2004
11	Ameeza 01.03.2007 Working as Permanent monthly paid worker
9	Selvaraj 21.05.2007

¶16

In view of the developments occurred during the pendency of the writ petition, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition.

¶17

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

¶18

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

¶20

/true copy/

¶21

Sub Asst. Registrar
dm/kj
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Labour and Employment Departmental of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Inspector of Plantations
Pandalur
Nilgiris.
+1cc to M/s.King & Padridge,Advocate sr.36666
W.P.No.19468 of 2003
and W.P.M.P.No.24310 of 2003
nm(co)
ss(16/5/2017)

¶22

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

Harrisons Malayalam Limited, v. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harrisons Malayalam Limited, v. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep

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

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs U/I. Owhing Indian Railways

Mr.S.Kannan, Vs the Secretary to Govt of T.N.

M. Ayyavoo Vs the Assistant Commissioner

D.Velu Vs 1.THE District Collector

P.Chinnathambi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

V. Dhandapani Vs the Personal Assistant