The High Court disposed of the writ petition for quashing an Employment Award. The court ruled the petition infructuous due to reliance on a prior Division Bench judgment and a subsequent order directing the petitioner to extend benefits and considering records.
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: 29.01.2019
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.35849 of 2003 & W.P.M.P.No. 11526 of 2006
The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai-606 604 ....Petitioner --Vs-1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai-9. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by it Secretary to labour and Employment Department, Chennai -9.
77.B.Ponnumudi 78.A.Raja 79.V.Shanmugam 80.R.Rajaram
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent relating to his award dated 30.06.2003 and made in Na.Ka.1234/2003 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anandgopalan for M/S.I.S.Gopalan & Co. Respondents : Mr.R.Janaki AGP for R1 to R3
Mr.N.Suresh for R16
No appearance for Respondents 4 to 15
& 17 to 80 O R D E R
The respective counsels appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as the respondents, jointly made a submission that the issues raised in the present writ petition had already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1302 of 2003 dated 24.10.2008 (The Superintending Engineer and Another V. The Inspector of Labour and Another), the relevant portion of which reads as follows :
infructuous having regard to the 18 (1) settlement. The appeals filed by the board against the decision of the learned single will also stand dismissed. The claims of the workmen in W.P.No. 1033 of 2006 and the connected batch will not stand affected by the decision of this court and the Labour Court will decide on their claims in I.D.No. 106 of 2003 in the light of what we have observed, in so far as they are relevant and independently of the same on factual issues whether they have been directly employed by the Electricity Board or not. The Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No Costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ska
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Energy Department, Chennai-9.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by it Secretary to labour and Employment Department,
Chennai -9.
3. The Inspector of Labour
Tiruvannamalai.
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.7610
+1cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate Sr.8225
+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & co Sr.7093
W.P.No.35849 of 2003
rv[co]
srg 7/3/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the award of the third respondent regarding employment claims is maintainable in light of previous binding judgments.
Whether the claim for permanent status under the order of the Inspector of Labour can be insisted upon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Superintending Engineer and Another V. The Inspector of Labour and AnotherRelied on¶17
Writ Appeal No.1302 of 2003
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai
The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to labour and Employment Department, Chennai
The Inspector of Labour, Tiruvannamalai
V.Sekar
B.Dhamodaran
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
