Disposed

The Management of Hotel Himalaya v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC3 Feb 2021WP/26359/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging an ex-parte labour court award upon the production of a joint compromise memo. The court recorded the settlement terms and closed the petition and connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition ordered closed in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.

The Management of Hotel Himalaya Vs The… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.02.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P.No.26359 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.30632 of 2018

¶5

The Management of Hotel Himalaya, No.54/91, Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104.

¶7

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the Award passed in I.D.No.40/2013 dated 18.07.2017 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for both sides appeared online and submitted that they have filed a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 30.10.2020 duly signed by the parties and attested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶9

The said Joint Memo of Compromise reads as follows:- "The petitioner and the II respondent herein has obtained ex Exparte Award Dt. 18.7.2017 in I.D.No.40 of 2013 against the interests of the petitioner before the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court. The second respondent then filed a claim petition before the Labour Court for computation of his monetary benefits before the Labour Court. The said claim petition C.P.No.143 of 2018 was allowed by an order Dt. 4.2.20 fixing the amount at Rs.1,82,500/-.

¶10

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

¶11

While the petitioner was contemplating to challenge the said orders, the second respondent approached the petitioner for resolving the dispute amicably, and for which the petitioner has agreed.

¶12

In pursuance to the same, the petitioner and the second respondent agree and pray that orders may be passed in the above Writ Petition on the following terms:-

¶13

A) The petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs. One lakh and thirty thousand only) for full and final settlement of the entire claim of second respondent against the petitioner.

¶14

B) The second respondent has accepted the same and infact has received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/from the petitioner, and passed on receipt in his favour, for full and final settlement of all his claim against the petitioner.

¶15

C) The second respondent asserts that he has no further claim whatsoever past or future against the petitioner relating to the Award passed and the orders as well by the III Additional Labour Court, and the Writ Petition may be closed accordingly."

¶16

Recording the said Memo, the Writ Petition is ordered in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 30.10.2020. The Joint Compromise Memo shall form part of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

(*) Copy of JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT, enclosed herewith.

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.S.Kanniah, Advocate SR.NO.6142

¶22

AKM/23.02.21/ 2P-3C/ W.P.No.26359 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.30632 of 2018 03.02.2021

¶23

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

The Management of Hotel Himalaya v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Hotel Himalaya v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs J.Crossley

The Superintending Engineer, Vs Tmt.Vijayalakshmi@Vijayakumari

Tmt.T.P.K.Thilakavathy Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Ravikumar, Vs M/s.Toll (India) Logistics

P.Maruthairaj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Kanchi Kamakoti childs Trust Vs The Joint Commissioner of