Dismissed

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. M.Shanthi

Madras HC16 Apr 2019CONT P/283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition against the Labour Commissioner and employer for failing to decide an appeal within four months of a Court order. The Court held the delay was caused by the petitioner's interlocutory application and adjournment requests, dismissing the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition stood dismissed with no order as to costs.

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar Vs M.Shanthi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No.283 of 2019 Krishnamurthy Sivakumar, S/o.Krishnamurthy Rajagopal, Flat No.46, 50 Unnamalai Ammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tmt.M.Shanthi, The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-I Appellate Authority under The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Management of Cognizant Technology Solutions Private Limited, Represented by its Vice-President-Human Resources New No.365, Old No.110 Menon Eternity Building, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the 1^st Respondent for disobeying the order dated 28.06.2018 in W.P.No.15829/2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.Rohini Ravikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Government Pleader for R1

¶10

Mr.G.Anand for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R2

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 28.06.2018 passed in W.P.No.15829 of 2018.

¶15

2.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that a direction was issued to the respondents by this Court on 28.06.2018 to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner in T.S.E.No.1/01/2016 on merits and in accordance with law and by providing reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned and pass orders as early as possible preferably within a period of four Months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

respondents made a submission that after passing of the

¶17

order by this Court, the Contempt petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.6/2018 to direct the Appellate Authority to receive and mark the additional

¶18

documents submitted by the writ petitioner. On account of the fact the the Interlocutory Application filed, the 1^st respondent was not in a position to dispose of the main appeal filed by the writ petitioner in T.S.E.No.1/01/2016.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

4.It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent / Management that the Contempt Petitioner frequently obtained adjournments before the 1^st respondent without any valid reason. The adjournments sought for by the writ petitioners are narrated hereunder:-

¶22

5.Now, the matter is listed for final arguments on 29.04.2019. This being the factum, the Contempt Petitioner ought not to have chosen to file the Contempt Petition. After the directions issued by this Court, the Contempt Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application before the 1^st respondent and filed a Contempt Petition simultaneously. Such a conduct of the Contempt Petitioner is deprecated. When the adjournments are granted at the instance of the Contempt Petitioner, he cannot blame the 1^st respondent by stating that the 1^st respondent has not disposed of the appeal within the time limit prescribed by this Court.

¶23

6.It is further brought to the notice of this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the 1^st

¶24

¶25

respondent. Against the order, another writ petition is also filed.

¶26

7.This being the factum of the case, the respondents

¶27

have not committed any Contempt of Court willfully and

¶28

therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Contempt Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) kak //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶30

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶31

Sm/17/05/2019

¶32

¶33

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-I Appellate Authority under The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act Chennai – 600 006.

¶34

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

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. M.Shanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamurthy Sivakumar v. M.Shanthi

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

K.Rasu, Vs The Agricultural Production

S.Muthukumaraswamy Vs M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd.

V.M.Madhusoodhanan Vs D.v.Prasad IAS

S.Selvarasu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Krishnan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Murugesan Vs Atulya Missra IAS