Dismissed

K.Nachimuthu v. the Ditrict Manager II

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP/25615/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash proceedings and resume service as a Bar Attender after suspension without enquiry or subsistence allowance. The Court declined interference due to absence of jurisdictional or malafide grounds but granted liberty for arrears of allowance.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an application for payment of arrears of subsistence allowance, with a direction for the respondent to consider it within four weeks.

K.Nachimuthu Vs the Ditrict Manager II — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.25615 of 2013

and

M.P. No. 1 of 2013

K. Nachimuthu .. Petitioner vs. The District Manager -II (Retail Selling) TASMAC Ltd., Angaripalayam Tiruppur District. .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.13/2004/A dated 29.09.2004 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to resume into his service as Bar Attender in the respondent TASMAC shop.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s. M. Subha

¶11

For Respondent : Mr. C. Kasi Rajan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.13/2004/A dated 29.09.2004 and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to resume into his service, as Bar Attender in the respondent TASMAC shop.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Bar Attender on 30.01.2004 by the respondent. On 29.09.2004, when the Area Supervisor visited the shop, found some shortage in collection of empty bottles in the shop and so placed the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is kept under prolonged suspension, without conducting any enquiry and he was not even paid with the subsistence allowance. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suspension order has been issued, based on the inspection conducted by the Area Supervisor. Hence, the petitioner could not raise any ground of challenge, either on the jurisdiction or on the malafide against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the suspension order passed by the department. Learned counsel further submitted that the whereabouts of the petitioner was not known and hence the enquiry could not be completed and so, if the petitioner cooperates, the respondent will complete the enquiry, within a reasonable period.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

The petitioner has not raised any ground of malafide or a question of jurisdiction and so the order of suspension, passed by the respondent cannot be interfered by this Court. However, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, deserves to be considered.

¶19

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application for payment of arrears of subsistence allowance and on receipt of such application, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders within a period of four weeks, there from. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To The District Manager-II, (Retail Selling)TASMAC Ltd., Angaripalayam, Tiruppur District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.C.Kasirajan, Advocate Sr.1347

¶26

+1cc to Mr.K.Thilageswaran, Advocate Sr.1495

¶27

W.P.No.25615 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

¶28

svi[co] srg 27/03/2017

¶29

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

K.Nachimuthu v. the Ditrict Manager II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nachimuthu v. the Ditrict Manager II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Santhosh, Vs the Secretary

K.Naveen Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Kothandaraman Vs State of Tamilnadu

T.Saraswathi, Vs the District Collector

V.Mageshkumar, Vs the General Manager

Anna Poorani Vs the State Rep.by the District