Dismissed

M.Sathyamurthy v. The Special Officer Administration

Madras HC21 Jan 2021WP/10631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court upheld the Labour Court's order refusing production of documents sought by the petitioner as they were irrelevant and pertained to a pending criminal case. The Court confined relief to only those documents relevant to overtime wages claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no costs. The Labour Court's order finding the documents irrelevant is confirmed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

M.Sathyamurthy Vs The Special Officer Administration — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.10631 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.11108 of 2019

¶6

M.Sathyamurthy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Special Officer Administration, Tamil Nadu Special Police Employee, Co-operative Thrift Benefit Society Limited, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying to grant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the order passed in I.A.No.356 of 2017 in I.D.No.82 of 2011, by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same and further direct the respondent management to produce the documents required in I.A.No.356 of 2017 in I.D.No.82 of 2011.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Sudalai Kannu For Respondent : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram

¶11

The petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application for production of certain documents by the management. The contents of the the affidavit discloses that in order to prove that he received overtime wages he wanted production of cash register and other documents. For that purpose he filed the Interlocutory Application. However, in the guise of calling for the above Cash Register, the petitioner sought production of so many documents which are connected to the criminal case pending against him. The Labour Court has found that those documents are connected to criminal proceedings and irrelevant for domestic enquiry.

¶12

I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the Labour Court. If at all, the petitioner want to get documents pertaining to overtime wages, he should restrict his relief only with respect to the relevant documents and cannot seek production of irrelevant documents.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that all the documents are relevant, which this Court considers not correct and acceptable. Therefore, those contentions are rejected and findings of the Labour Court is hereby confirmed.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
pns Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Special Officer Administration,
Tamil Nadu Special Police Employee,
Co-operative Thrift Benefit Society Limited,
Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu, Advocate, S.R.No.3082
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.3548
W.P.No.10631 of 2019
um(CO)
rv(10/02/2021)

¶17

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

M.Sathyamurthy v. The Special Officer Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sathyamurthy v. The Special Officer Administration

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

M/s.Slb Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance)

M/s. Schaeffier India Limited Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I

S.Thangadurai, S/o.Sellaiya Vs The Presiding Officer

Elgi Rubber Company Ltd. Vs Jothi Nirmla IAS

Sri Venkateswara Silks and Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

The Management, Vs The Presiding Officer