Petitioner sought to quash a Labour Court order awarding Rs.52,000 to an employee alleging abandonment. The court held that since the order was based on findings of fact and twenty years had elapsed, it declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous application closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 23.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.34638 of 2003
and W.M.P.No.42084 of 2003 (Through Video Conference)
M/s. ICA (Madras) Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Mr.S.Natarjan, No.99, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
...Petitioner
-vs-
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent and quash the order of the 1st respondent Labour Court, Chennai dated 27.05.2003 in C.P.No.271 of 2000.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Natarajan For Respondents: No Appearance
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 27.05.2003 made in C.P.No.271 of 2000, by which, the money value of the benefits due to the Workman has been computed at Rs.52,000/-.
2.1. According to the Management, the Employee had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported for work only for two days and thereafter, he was
absent from duty. The Labour Court, despite production of the Attendance Registers from September 1998 to March 1999 and from January 2000 to March 2000 as Ex.16 by the Management, has held that the Management had not properly denied the averments made by the Workman that he was not given any job as per the direction of the Authority.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sts To:
The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai.
W.P.No.34638 of 2003
NMI(CO) A.SK(26.11.2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's factual finding that the workman was entitled to Rs.52,000/- after 20 years of litigation.
Whether the quashing of the Labour Court order under Article 226 is justified given the conclusiveness of the finding on facts.
If the writ petition to quash the order awarding benefits has merit despite the delay in representation.
M/s. ICA (Madras) Private Limited
The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai
D.Vijayakumar
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
