Dismissed

The Administrator, v. v. Vijayakumar

Madras HC20 Sept 2022WP/25552/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order for reinstatement. Finding the petition infructuous as the petitioner had already reinstated the respondent but filed a dispute over back wages which requires a proper forum instead. Liberty granted to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate forum regarding back wages.

The Administrator, Vs v. Vijayakumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 & 1 of 2007

¶9

The Administrator,

¶10

Karaikal Central Co-operative Processing Supply & Marketing Society Ltd., Karaikal. .. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

V.Vijaykumar

¶13

Labour Court, Karaikal, Pondicherry. ..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in the order dated 23.02.2006 in I.D.16/2001 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.V.Govarthanan

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Karaikal directing the reinstatement of the first respondent, wherein, the retrenchment of the first respondent was set aside and the petitioner was at liberty to accommodate the first respondent in any suitable position. It is submitted by the parties that pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing the payment of back wages, the petitioner has reinstated the first respondent as Watchman and that he had also superannuated. The only issue that remains is the payment of back wages. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that he has been only paid the wages after reinstatement and not actual salary payable for a Watchman. The said dispute cannot be decided in the writ petition and the petitioner shall approach the appropriate forum on filing the proper petition.

¶21

In view of the above submission that the 1^st respondent has been reinstated and has attained superannuation, the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the first respondent is required to approach the appropriate forum by way of filing proper application.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

¶25

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

20.09.2022

¶27

kmm Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No

¶28

¶29

Labour Court, Karaikal, Pondicherry.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

¶33

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

kmm

W.P.No.25552 of 2006

20.09.2022

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

¶38

4/4

The Administrator, v. v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Administrator, v. v. Vijayakumar

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

L.Damodaran, Vs Director

The Maangement Tamilnadu Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

V.R. Nagarajan Vs the Board of Directors State

V.Malarkodi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Dayalan Vs the Superintending Engineer