Dismissed

The Commissioner, v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC20 Apr 2018WP/9447/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a workmen's compensation award was dismissed. The Court held that appeal lies under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on deposit of the award amount, and the writ petition was maintainable only to direct the petitioner to file the statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file appropriate appeal under Section 30 of the Act; no order as to costs.

The Commissioner, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.9447 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003. ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1,
For Workmen's Compensation,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.M/s.Raus Constuction Pvt., Ltd.,
4-10-30, 7 th Street,
HMT Nagar, Nucharan,
Hyderabad – 500 076.
3.Mr.Srinivasan @ Srinivas
4.Mrs.Vijaya
5.D.Ravikumar (Minor)
6.D.Mohan (Minor) ... Respondents
(Respondents 5&6 are Minors Rep by their Mother Vijaya)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India issue a writ of certiorari to call for
the orders on the file of the 1 st respondent herein in W.C.No.99
of 2011 and quash the Impugned Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by
the 1 st respondent herein as highly illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner :Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok
For Respondent 1 :Mr.J.Ramesh,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 3 :No appearance
For Respondents 4 to 6 :Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issue a writ of certiorari to call for the orders on the file of the 1^st respondent herein in W.C.No.99 of 2011 and quash the Impugned Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the 1^st respondent herein as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The award passed by the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in W.C.No.99 of 2011 is sought to be quashed.

¶11

Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides appeals. Accordingly, on deposit of entire award amount, an appeal is to be filed before the High Court. However, the petitioner has erroneously filed the writ petition, challenging the award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that entire award amount in W.C.No.99 of 2011 had already been deposited. However, the learned cousnel for the petitioner has to file an appropriate appeal by producing the deposit receipt.

¶13

In this view of the matter, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained and the writ petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the manner known to law.

¶14

With these observations, the writ petition stands dismisssed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS VIII) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar nl To The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, For Workmen's Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. +1cc to Mr.K.Vardhakamaraj, Advocate, sr.no.29647 +1cc to the Government Pleader, sr.no.30003

¶15

W.P.No.9447 of 2014 GMR(CO) RRK(24/05/18)

¶16

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

The Commissioner, v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, v. the Deputy Commissioner 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

Shiny Knitwear Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Prime Tex Unit-B Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Augustan Knitwear Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Tamil Nadu

blue star limited Vs 1. Presiding Officer

Sellapangi Vs the District Collector

The Commissioner, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of