Dismissed

M.Boopalan, v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC24 Jul 2023WP/26677/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a challenge to a labor court award granting Rs.3 lakh compensation. Despite the employer's liquidation, the court dismissed the petition for lacking merits but directed the liquidator to pay the awarded sum via certified mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Certified mandamus directing the liquidator to disburse Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.

M.Boopalan, Vs the Presiding Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.26677 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.26677 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

M.Boopalan

...Petitioner

-Vs-

The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶11

The Management, Automotive Coaches and Components Ltd.,

¶12

Plot No.C1 & D6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 25.01.2001 and the first respondent award in I.D.No.684 of 2001 dated 31.12.2012 and quash the impugned awards and further direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.No.26677 of 2013

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents R1 : Court For R2 : No appearance

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated

¶20

31.12.2012 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.684 of 2001, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, payable to the petitioner, by the second respondent.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶22

that now the second respondent company itself is under liquidation and it is under the charge of some liquidator.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no

¶24

infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the liquidator of the second respondent company is directed to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this Order.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

W.P.No.26677 of 2013

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

24.07.2023

¶30

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶31

rts

¶32

¶33

The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai.

¶34

The Management, Automotive Coaches and Components Ltd., Plot No.C1 & D6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District.

¶35

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

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

W.P.No.26677 of 2013

¶38

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶39

rts

¶40

W.P.No.26677 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶41

24.07.2023

¶42

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

¶43

Page 4 of 4

M.Boopalan, v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Boopalan, 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

Tmt.R.Amudavalli, Vs District Elementaryeducational

T.K.Shivashankara Naik Vs the Chief General Manager

A.Rajaram (Deceased), Vs the Secretary to Government

The Management, Salem Agrl. Vs the Presiding Officer

V.Arvind Kumar, Vs the Registrar

A.Sundarambal Vs the Accounts Officer