Allowed

Jayabalan v. 1.JOINT Regr.of Coop. Societie

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP/41365/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Registrar order. The court held that the Registrar erred in granting consolidated pay from reinstatement only rather than full back wages based on a prior Labour Court order reinstating the petitioner with full benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed with respect to payment of wages from date of reinstatement only; consecutive WPMPs closed.

Jayabalan Vs 1.JOINT Regr.of Coop… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 27.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P. No.41365 of 2002

¶7

Jayabalan .. Petitioner -vs1.Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvanamalai Region, Tiruvanamalai. 2.The Management H.H.236 Thandarai, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, rep. by its Special Officer, Thandarai Post, Tiruvanamalai Taluk, Tiruvanamalai – 606 804. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent order dated 30.07.2001 in Revision Petition No.2/2001, Na.Ka.No.4075/2001 Sa.Pa. and quash the same only with respect to the order in so far as it relates to the payment of monthly wages to the petitioner from the date of re-instatement consequently directing the second respondent to pay the petitioner the wages as per the current scale of pay for salesman post.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Saravana Vel For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 30.07.2001.

¶14

2.Heard learned counsel.

¶15

3.The impugned order passed by the first respondent has set

¶16

aside the order of suspension. However, the first respondent has granted consolidated pay only from date of re-instatement which direction is challenged in this writ petition. The order of the Labour Court in I.D. No.11/94 dated 29.10.1997 re-instates the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of benefits and all attendant benefits. Thus, upon re-instatement, the benefits extended to the petitioner would be available in full.

¶17

4.It is a settled position of law that an appellate order can deal with only the subject matter of the subject and not traverse beyond the same.

¶18

5.Further, W.P. No.7690 of 2000, the writ petition filed by the Management, the second respondent herein, challenging the award of

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

the Presiding Officer in I.D. No.11 of 1994 dated 29.10.1997 has been

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

6.In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. No

¶24

costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are closed.

¶25

27.01.2017
vga

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶29

vga

¶30

W.P. No.41365 of 2002

¶31

27.01.2017

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

Jayabalan v. 1.JOINT Regr.of Coop. Societie

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayabalan v. 1.JOINT Regr.of Coop. Societie

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Rep by the Vs M/S.Ganapathy Smelters Ltd.

R.Maheswaran Vs 1.THE Dt.Collector, Coimbatore

M/S.Premier Marine Products Vs the Commissioner of Incomt Tax

Tn Cable T.v.Operators Vs S/T.N. Rep by Its Secretary

Anupparpalayam Primary Agricul Vs the Principal District Judge

K. Akbar Vs Superintendent Engineer