Writ petition filed by an employee to quash a tribunal award and claim reinstatement. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as it was not taken up by the petitioner or counsel on the day of hearing.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P. 1036 of 2014
M.Kanakasundaram
... Petitioner
Vs
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent which culminated in the award I.D.No.85 of 2002 dated 01.03.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.
When the above Writ Petition was posted for hearing on 02.01.2019, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was posted today “for orders”. Even today, (07.01.2019) there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through the counsel on record. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Kanakasundaram
The Presiding Officer, The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai
The Southern Regional Manager, Air India, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
