Disposed

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Aug 2020CMP(MD)/838/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is in CMP(MD) No.838 of 2020, filed to condone a delay of 295 days in filing a Writ Appeal against a Labour Court order. Viewing the reasons as administrative without specific dates, the court condoned the delay upon payment of costs and directed the registry to admit and list the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condoned the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal on payment of Rs. 3,000 costs within two weeks.

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.838 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of August Two Thousand Twenty

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN and The Honble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CMP(MD) No.838 of 2020 in W.A(MD)SR.No.4230 of 2020

¶7

THE MANAGEMENT,

¶8

TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI LTD., DINDIGUL REGION, BY PASS ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O., DINDIGUL – 624004. ... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI.

¶11

2 M.SUBRAMANI ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 295 days in filing the above Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 04.03.2019 made in WP(MD) No.11852 of 2009 on the file of this Honble Court and thus render justice.

¶13

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.APPADURAI, Advocate for R2, the court made the following order:-

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J)

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The reasons set out in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit appear to be an administrative reason in nature and no dates and months have been given.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

CMP(MD) No.838 of 2020

¶19

Though vakalat has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been returned and the name of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent is also printed in the cause list.

¶20

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is condoned on payment of costs.

¶21

In the result, the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/to the Additional Registrar General / Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for improving the amenities relating to virtual hearings etc., within a period of two weeks from today (ie., 24.08.2020) and file a memo to that effect.

¶22

5.The Registry is directed to take note of the said memo and number the Writ Appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order, list it for admission and print the name of the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

24/08/2020 / TRUE COPY /

¶25

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

¶27

¶28

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI.

¶29

COPY TO:

¶30

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR GENERAL / REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶31

ORDER IN

¶32

CMP(MD) No.838 of 2020 in W.A(MD)SR.No.4230 of 2020

¶33

Date :24/08/2020

¶34

MS/VR/SAR-2/27.08.2020/2P.3C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management, v. the Presiding Officer

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

Sheela Vs the Secretary to Government

Mr. S.K.P. Kuttralingam Vs the District Collector

K.Senthilkumar Vs The Director General of Highways Department of Tamilnadu

A. Shanthakumari Natchathira Jeyamani Vs Government of Tamilnadu

The Chairman Vs S. Velmurugan

Singaravadivelu Vs The District Collector