Dismissed

The Superintending Engineer v. S.Anvar Basha

Madras HC9 Jul 2021WP/27497/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order of the Labour Court directing payment of Rs.1,108 to a workman under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as having no merits, noting the negligible amount and lack of jurisdictional error.

What did the court decide?

No direction to the Petitioner to pay the interim order amount; original impugned order stands

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.Anvar Basha — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.27497 of 2004

¶6

The Superintending Engineer,

¶7

Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupattur.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

S.Anwar Basha

¶11

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd Respondent relating to his order dated 22.04.2004 passed in C.P.No.425 of 2003 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Haroon for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.04.2004 passed by the 2^nd Respondent/Labour Court in C.P.No.425 of 2003.

¶16

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the 2^nd Respondent/Labour Court, without reference to the specific contentions raised by the Petitioner and without adverting to the statutory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, has passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner/Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,108/- to the 1^st Respondent/workman.

¶17

It is seen that, the Labour Court, after taking note of the factual aspects pleaded by the parties, determined the

¶18

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

¶19

amount of Rs.1,108/- to be payable by the Petitioner/Management to the 1^st Respondent/workman, together with interest. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, the contention of the Petitioner/Management has to be accepted, they ought not to have approached this Court for a paltry sum of Rs.1,108/-. It is also seen that, the Labour Court has not awarded interest.

¶20

It is made clear that, if the amount is not paid within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, it will earn interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order of the Labour Court.

¶21

In view of the foregoing discussion, as there are no merits in the Writ Petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

(aeb)

¶26

To:

¶27

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore.

¶28

+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, S.R.No.32389

¶29

W.P.No.27497 of 2004

¶30

SSI(CO) CS/12/08/2021

¶31

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

The Superintending Engineer v. S.Anvar Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer v. S.Anvar Basha

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

The Management of Chemplast Vs the Presiding Officer

S.Venkatesan Vs the Management of the Garrison

M. Joseph Sudersanam Vs the Management of the

M/s.Pulliccar Mills ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

The Management Vs B.R.Chandrasekaran

The Regional Provident Fund Vs M/S.S&S Industries and