Disposed

R.Saminathan,S/o.Raghavel v. The Managing Director

Madras HC25 Nov 2019WP/22028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed by employees of TASMAC/Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation to quash their removal orders and related appeal orders. The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appropriate authority must reconsider the matter and directed the Respondents to consider the petitioners' representation within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks of receipt.

R.Saminathan,S/o.Raghavel Vs The Managing… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.11.2019

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

W.P.Nos.22028 and 22029 of 2018

¶5

and W.M.P.Nos.25822 and 25824 of 2018

¶6

R. Saminathan ...Petitioner in 22028 of 2018 2. K. Pradeep ...Petitioner in 22029 of 2018 Vs. 1.The Managing Director, TASMAC, Head Office, 4^th Floor, CMDA Tower, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, LLA Building, 4^th Floor, No.735, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents in both W.P.s

¶7

COMMON PRAYER : These Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondents in connection with the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2-123A-2012 dated 19.10.2012 passed by the 3^rd respondent and the order in Se.Mu. Order No.A3/3951/2014 dated 20.11.2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶8

( In both appeals) For Petitioner : Mr.Lesi Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.K. Sathish Kumar

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

These writ petition have been filed by the petitioners, to call for the records on the file of the respondents in connection with the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2-123A-2012 dated 19.10.2012 passed by the 3^rd respondent and the order in Se.Mu. Order No.A3/3951/2014 dated 20.11.2014 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶12

2.The case of the petitioners are that they were working as sales man in the 3^rd respondent shop. On 15.03.2012 all the employees who were working in the shop were placed under suspension due to the reason that they found certain alleged irregularities like water mixing etc., and on 17.05.2013 they were issued with a charge memo and an enquiry was held on 04.07.2012. On 19.10.2012 the 2^nd respondent passed the removal order and against the said order these petitioners preferred an appeal. But, the 2^nd respondent confirmed the order of removal on 20.11.2014.

¶13

3.Hence the petitioners preferred a revision petition on 15.12.2014, but the same was not considered. Hence, these writ petitions came to be filed.

¶14

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, his Court is of the view that the first respondent is the appropriate authority to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the above directions these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS-)

¶17

// True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

smn

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Managing Director,
TASMAC, Head Office,
4 th Floor, CMDA Tower,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation
Limited, LLA Building, 4 th Floor,
No.735, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited,
Thiruvallur District.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.98121.
+2cc to Mr. Lesi Saravnan, Advocate, SR.Nos.98296 & 98292
W.P.Nos.22028 and 22029 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.25822 and 25824 of 2018
RP (CO)
CSR(12/12/2019)

¶23

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

R.Saminathan,S/o.Raghavel v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Saminathan,S/o.Raghavel v. The Managing Director

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

G. Margret Pricilla Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajendran Vs S.Palanisamy IAS

K.M.v.Manivannan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Jayadevan Vs The Collector

Bhagwan Das Mangal Vs the Sub Registrar

Dr. Shankari Venkataraman Vs the Secretary