Allowed

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC5 Jul 2023WP/10969/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, invoking Art. 226, allowed a petition to quash a labor court award deemed non-speaking. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with opportunity passed to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the award dated 15.10.2009 (referred to as 2005 in text) and remanded the matter to the labor court for fresh consideration with opportunity passed to parties.

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.9561 and 9562 of 2016

¶9

The Management, The Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cherry Road, Salem 636 001. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶10

The Presiding Officer, Labour court, Salem.

¶11

M.Poomalai

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in ID No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem the first respondent herein, quash the award dated 15.10.2008 passed herein.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan R2

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶16

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petition has been filed seeking to quash the order in ID No.17 of

¶19

2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem the first respondent herein, dated 15.10.2008 passed herein.

¶20

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent fairly submitted that the award passed by the first respondent is non-speaking order, which has to be necessarily interfered with. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

¶21

3. In view of the fair submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to set aside the imugned order. Accordingly, the same is set-aside and remands the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity to the petitioner Company as well as the second respondent on merits as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

¶24

4. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is

¶25

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶26

05.07.2023

¶27

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No

¶28

rli

¶29

¶30

The Presiding Officer, Labour court, Salem.

¶31

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

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rli

W.P.No.10969 of 2016

¶36

05.07.2023

¶37

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

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

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 Correspondent Vs The Appellate Authority

E.Premkumar, Vs The Management

Glenrock Estates (P) Ltd, Vs The Appellate Authority Under

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs the Administrator

The Management Vs Thiru.K.Sakthiyavel

The Deputy Director Vs P.Venkatesan,S/o.Pachaiyappan