Partly allowed

J.Bheeman v. The Managing Director

Madras HC9 Oct 2023WP/4916/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to quash a recovery order against a tea maker for firewood shortage. The court held that the petitioner had an internal statutory appeal remedy under the bye-laws which must be exhausted first. The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the proper forum within the statutory time limit.

J.Bheeman Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4916 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No.4916 of 2020

¶7

and W.M.P.No.5818 of 2020

¶8

J.Bheeman, S/o.Jaju Tea Maker, Grade II Cherambady Tea Factory Chereambady

¶9

... Petitioner /Vs/

¶10

1.The Managing Director, Tantea, Coonoor.

¶11

2.Divisional Manager, Cherambady Tea Division, Cherambady.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of 1^st respondent in Proc.No.E1/6856/2019 dated 10.01.2020 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.V. Arunkumar Government Advocate.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.4916 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to

¶21

call for the records of 1^st respondent in Proc.No.E1/6856/2019 dated 10.01.2020 and quash the same.

¶22

2.The Petitioner, who was working as a Tea Maker under the first Respondent, which is under the control of the second Respondent, has been given with the charge that there is a difference in the fire wood stock between book stock and actual stock. Finding a difference of 22.655 M.T.,

¶23

the Petitioner was called upon to pay the short fall of Rs.1,07,589/-.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the second Respondent did not consider the explanation given by the Petitioner that the difference is due to unsplit quantity of logs and after the spliting of logs, the stock as per book will tally the physical stock.

¶25

4.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶26

5.The process contemplated by the Petitioner did not result in any reduction in the difference and so the proceedings for recovery has been

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.4916 of 2020

¶30

issued. The Petitioner has got a statutory remedy for preferring an Appeal under Section 54 of bye-law. Since the Petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the Appeal remedy, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Petitioner to file an appropriate Appeal proceedings before the proper forum, within a period of statutory time limit, under the relevant provisions. However, the limitation period shall be calculated from the date on which the copy of this order received by the Petitioner.

¶31

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

09.10.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sai

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.4916 of 2020

R.N.MANJULA, J.

sai

The Managing Director, Tantea, Coonoor.

¶40

Divisional Manager, Cherambady Tea Division, Cherambady.

¶41

W.P. No.4916 of 2020

¶42

and W.M.P.No.5818 of 2020

¶43

09.10.2023

¶44

4/4

¶45

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

J.Bheeman v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Bheeman v. The Managing Director

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

G.Moulin Prasanth Vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

M.Manimegalai Vs The Joint Director of School

T.Manickavelu Vs The Director of School Education

P.Saravanan Vs Deputy Director

M.Elanchezhian Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

R.Bakthavachalu, Vs The Liequidation Officer Avl,/ Additional Registrar