Quashed

The Management, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC19 Jul 2023WP/18992/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an ex-parte Labour Court order. The court modified the award, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,40,066 with 4% interest to the respondent-employee within four weeks. The miscellaneous petitions connected to this writ were subsequently closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,40,066 with 4% interest from December 2008 within four weeks; Writ Petition dismissed; Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Management, Vs The Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016 and W.M.P. Nos.16553 of 2016 and 17568 of 2017

¶7

The Management,

¶8

Rep. by its General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (III) Limited, Kanchipuram - 631 501. … Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶11

C.Nagamani ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in Claim Petition No. 404 of 2014 dated 09.10.2015 and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Aswin For R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.S.Ravi

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.10.2015 in

¶19

C.P. No. 404 of 2014 passed by the first respondent.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court against the petitioner Management claiming a sum of Rs.7,92,158.33/-. The Labour Court vide its order dated 09.10.2015, directed the petitioner Management to pay such amount to the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the wrong calculation, an ex-parte award was passed in favour of the second respondent, which is not sustainable one. In fact, the petitioner Management calculated the due payable to the second respondent for a sum of Rs.2,40,066/and the same will be paid to the second respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel for the second respondent have not raised any objection to receive the amount of Rs.2,40,066/-. To that effect, this Court may modify the award passed by this Labour Court.

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016

¶26

In view of the fair submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the petitioner Management to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,066/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty thousand and sixty six only) with 4% interest from December 2008 to till the date of payment, to the second respondent, as full quit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶29

19.07.2023

¶30

Rli Index: Yes/No NCS : Yes/No

¶31

To The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016

¶35

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶36

Rli

¶37

W.P. No. 18992 of 2016

¶38

19.07.2023

¶39

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

¶40

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary

The General Manager Vs The Division Secretary

M/s.Perfect Vending India Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

A.Savarinathan Vs The Presiding Officer

The Superintendent of Post Vs The Presiding Officer

The Special Officer/Managing Vs The Special Deputy