Allowed

District Beedi Workers Union v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2018CMP(MD)/12037/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone a delay of 503 days in filing a Writ Appeal, ruling that the pendency of another appeal arising from the same order justified the lapse. Direct computation of delay was not made due to this pendency.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying for condonation of delay is allowed. The Writ Appeal is posted for hearing.

District Beedi Workers Union Vs the Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Eleventh day of December Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN and

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

CMP(MD) No.12037 of 2018 IN

¶8

WA(MD) No.SR51140 of 2018

¶9

DISTRICT BEEDI WORKERS UNION REP.BY ITS PARTNER, 6-A-1,PARASAKTHI BUILDING, MADURAI ROAD, TIRUNELVELI -627 001. ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶10

¶11

1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, E.P.F.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI.

¶12

2 SEYADU BEEDI COMPANY SALAI STREET, SINDUPOONDURAI, TIRUNELVELI JUNCTION, TIRUNELVELI-627 001

¶13

3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, N.G.O.B COLONY, TIRUNELVELI. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 503 days in filing the writ appeal and thus render justice.

¶15

PRAYER IN WA(MD) No.SR51140 of 2018

¶16

Set aside order of the learned Judge dated 23.06.2017 in WP. (MD)No.11733 of 2010 and allow the writ petition as prayed for and to pass such further orders.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 11733/ 2010 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, after calling for the records from the 1st Respondent relating to the impugned order dated 25-03-2009 in A.T.A.No.680 (13) 2003, quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.S.ARUNACHALAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.MURALISANKAR,Advocate for R2, the court made the following order:-

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. ]

¶23

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 503 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 23.06.2017 in W.P.[MD]No.11733 of 2010.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Muralisankar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶25

In view of the pendency of the appeal arising out of the very same order, the delay of 503 days is condoned.

¶26

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶27

The Registry is directed to number the Writ Appeal, if it is otherwise in order and post the Writ Appeal on 10 January 2019 along with W.A.(MD).No.1089 of 2018.

sd/-

11/12/2018

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶32

¶33

1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, E.P.F.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI.

¶34

2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, N.G.O.B COLONY, TIRUNELVELI

¶35

PS/JC/SAR-4/24.12.2018/2P/3C

¶36

ORDER

¶37

¶38

CMP(MD) No.12037 of 2018

¶39

¶40

WA(MD) No.SR51140 of 2018

¶41

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

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :11/12/2018

District Beedi Workers Union v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Beedi Workers Union v. the Presiding Officer

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

P.Shanmugavel, S/O.Ponnusamy Vs the Election Officer/

Petha Perumal Vs the Joint Commissioner

State of Tamil Nadu Rep Vs v.Purushothaman

R.Kumar Vs the Superintending Engineer

The Secretary Vs M. Kannan

C.Valliammai, Vs the Authorised Officer