Allowed

Mary Mathew, v. Management

Madras HC10 Mar 2020WPMP/46/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner moved the High Court to direct the 1st Respondent to pay a settled sum and allow withdrawal of funds deposited with the 3rd Respondent. The Court directed the Labor Court to withdraw the deposit and disburse it to the petitioner, relieving the bank of the need for the original receipt.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Labour Court to withdraw Rs.1,10,000/- deposited with the Indian Bank and disburse it to the petitioner, with the bank instructed not to insist on the original fixed deposit receipt.

Mary Mathew, Vs Management — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Tenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WPMP No.46 of 2015 IN WP.NO.6240 OF 1998

¶7

1 MARY MATHEW, [ PETITIONER ] 5, THIRU NAGAR, 1ST STREET, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-26.

¶8

Vs 1 MANAGEMENT, [ RESPONDENT ] HOTEL AMBASSADOR PALLAVA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 53, MONTIETH ROAD, CHENNAI-8. 2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADRAS. 3 THE INDIAN BANK, MADRAS HIGH COURT BRANCH, CHENNAI.104.

¶9

R3-SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.08.11.2017 BY MSJ IN WMP.46/2015 IN WP.6240/1998

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to Direct the 1st Respondent Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in cash and allow them to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of I.D.No.163/1988 IN WMP.NO.46 OF 2015

¶11

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.V.AJOY KHOSE, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.J.JAMES ADVOCATE FOR 1ST Respondent and of M/S.RITA CHANDRSEKARAN, ADVOCATE on behalf of the 3RD Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for both sides submits that they have reached a mutually agreeable settlement before the Mediation Centre, High Court, Madras. As per the settlement, management agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Out of this amount Rs.1,10,000/- has already been deposited before the Labour Court which is invested with the 3^rd respondent/Indian Bank. The balance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was directly paid to the petitioner /

¶13

employee. Now that the management is not in a position to produce the original fixed deposit receipt before the Labour Court and hence, payment out was not ordered.

¶14

Considering the circumstances, a direction is given to the Labour Court to withdraw the amount deposited with the 3^rd respondent / Indian Bank and disburse the same to the petitioner. The Indian Bank / 3^rd respondent is directed not to insist on the original fixed deposit receipt for releasing the money to the Labour Court.

¶15

The writ miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶16

-sd/-
10/03/2020
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. )
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MANAGEMENT,
HOTEL AMBASSADOR PALLAVA,
53, MONTIETH ROAD, CHENNAI-8.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INDIAN BANK,
MADRAS HIGH COURT BRANCH,
CHENNAI.104.
4 THE SECTION OFFICER
ACCOUNTS SECTION, HIGH COURT MADRAS.

¶17

C.C. to M/S.V.AJOY KHOSE Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶18

The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104. Order in WPMP.46/2015 in WP.NO.6240 OF 1998 Date :10/03/2020

¶19

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format VC (12/03/2020)IT

¶20

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

Mary Mathew, v. Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Mathew, v. Management

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

The Management of Overnite Vs the First Additinal Labour

S.K.Sampathkumar Vs Indo Asaim Finance Ltd.

M/S Sri Venkateshwara Glue Vs The spl Dist Revenue officer

The Executive Officer Vs the Inspector of Labour

S.Sivarasu, S/o. P.Subbiyan, Vs The Registrar

B.Sivaramalingam Vs The Regional Manager