Dismissed

R.Muthukumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC23 Aug 2022WP/16456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Doosan Employees Union as withdrawn, following a letter from the petitioner's counsel dated 27.09.2022, thereby closing the connected miscellaneous petition without awards of costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs awarded.

R.Muthukumar Vs The Principal Secretary to — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.29971 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.29971 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.34973 of 2018

¶8

Doosan Employees Union Rep.by its General Secretary, Regn.No.512/TVR No.42, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Poonamallee

¶9

Chennai – 600 056. ...Petitioner Vs.

¶10

1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Joint Director, Industrial Safety and Health Department, No.9 & 10, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street, Periakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Factories, Industrial Safety and Health Department, No.9 & 10, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street, Periakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.29971 of 2018

¶16

4.The Management,

¶17

Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Rep.by its Division Head No.18/2A, Seneerkuppam By-pass Road, Poonamallee Chennai – 600 056. ..Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, di rect the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to prevent the 4^th respondent from engaging the contract Labour engaged through various contractors from doing the regular manufacturing work and further initiate action against the 4^th respondent pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.08.2018, 07.08.2018 and 26.08.2018 in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner seeks

¶22

permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition. In this regard, he has sent a letter to the Registry, High Court of Madras on 27.09.2022

¶23

through e-mail.

¶24

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.29971 of 2018

¶26

Based on the letter sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.10.2022

Index : Yes kak

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

2.The Joint Director, Industrial Safety and Health Department, No.9 & 10, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street, Periakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶33

3.The Inspector of Factories, Industrial Safety and Health Department, No.9 & 10, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street, Periakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶34

4.The Management, Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Rep.by its Division Head No.18/2A, Seneerkuppam By-pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.

¶35

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.29971 of 2018

¶37

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶38

kak

¶39

W.P.No.29971 of 2018

¶40

11.10.2022

¶41

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Muthukumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthukumar v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.P.Ponraj,Supervisor, Vs The Presiding Officer

R.Mohan Vs Harmandar Singh IAS

The Management, Vs R.Gouthandaraman

Vincent Christopher Vs a.Irudayasamy(Deceased)

V.Tamilselvi Vs The Principal Secretary to

N.Nagaraj Vs Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department