Dismissed

N.Kumaresan v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WP/7045/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.No.7045 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought to quash a termination order and seek reinstatement. The court allowed withdrawal of the petition following a settlement between parties and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition; the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

N.Kumaresan Vs The Presiding Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7045 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.7045 of 2015 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.1 of 2015

N.kumaresan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore.

¶12

The Management of Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., represented by the Assistant Vice President (Establishments), Semmankuppam village, Cuddalore Taluk.

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents relating to the award passed by the first respondent dated 27.08.2014 in I.D.No.13 of 2012 and quash the same in so far as it upholds the termination of the petitioner from the service of the respondent company on 27.07.2011 and orders payment of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to him and direct the second respondent management to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequent and attendant benefits.

¶14

Page No.1 of 3

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.7045 of 2015

¶17

For petitioner : Mr.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan For R1 : Labour Court For R2 : Mr.P.Raghunathan for Mr.T.S.Gopalan

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Learned counsel representing the petitioner has reported that the matter has been settled between the parties and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and she has also made an endorsement on the docket

¶20

of the case bundle.

¶21

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

Costs made easy. Connected W.M.P. stands closed.

21.11.2023

vca

To:

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Cuddalore.

¶27

The Management of Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., represented by the Assistant Vice President (Establishments), Semmankuppam village, Cuddalore Taluk.

¶28

Page No.2 of 3

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.7045 of 2015

¶31

DR. D.NAGARJUN,J.

¶32

vca

¶33

W.P.No.7045 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶34

21.11.2023

¶35

Page No.3 of 3

¶36

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

N.Kumaresan v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kumaresan 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

E.Murugan Vs The Director

V.Periyasamy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Y.a.Mahalingam Vs Govt of India

S. Ranganayaki, Vs The Director of School

N.Selvamani Vs The Secretary to the

A.Easudoss Vs The State of Tamilnadu