Disposed

M.Yesu v. Michel Albert

Madras HC2 Mar 2022CONT P/46/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of a prior order regarding payment under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court closed the petition with liberty to revive if compliance was not made within 7 days.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed with liberty to revive within 7 days if compliance is not made.

M.Yesu Vs Michel Albert — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Cont.P.No.46 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.03.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Contempt Petition No.46 of 2022

¶9

M.Yesu, No.119, Perumal Koil Street, Senrabakkam, (Vilangadupakkam Post), Chennai 600 052 .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Michael Albert Chief Engineer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station-I, Chennai 600 120.

¶12

Manimegalai The Superintending Engineer (Purchase and Administration), North Chennai Thermal Power Station-I, Chennai 600 120. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

¶14

to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the order dated

¶15

15.06.2021 passed in C.M.P.No.8466 of 2021 in W.A.No.1356 of 2021 on

¶16

the file of this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

age 1 of 3

¶19

Cont.P.No.46 of 2022

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For the Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. * * * * *

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by

¶23

the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

The contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the

¶25

direction in reference to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contemnors

¶27

submits that a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid and compliance of Section 17B of the Act of 1947 would be made within a week

¶28

and accordingly, last drawn wages would be paid to the petitioner workman.

¶29

In view of the above, we close the contempt petition, however, with

¶30

the liberty to the petitioner workman to seek revival of the contempt petition, if compliance, as assured by the learned counsel for the

¶31

respondents, is not made within a period of 7 days.

¶32

SD/-

¶33

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶34

SRA

¶35

//Certified to be true copy//

¶36

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶37

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶38

age 2 of 3

¶39

Cont.P.No.46 of 2022

¶40

Gs/11/03/2022 To:

¶41

The Chief Engineer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station-I, Chennai 600 120.

¶42

The Superintending Engineer (Purchase and Administration), North Chennai Thermal Power Station-I, Chennai 600 120.

¶43

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

¶44

age 3 of 3

M.Yesu v. Michel Albert

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yesu v. Michel Albert

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

K.Venkatesan Vs The District collector (chennai District)

S.Ramasamy Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Chella Perumal (Died) Vs Gopalakrishnan

V.Rajarathinam Vs The Executive Engineer

R.Babu Vs The Controller of Examiner

B.Sivakumar Vs The Vice Chancellor