Allowed

V.Sethukumar (Ex-Serviceman) v. the Managing Director

Madras HC11 Apr 2023WP(MD)/11521/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside a termination order passed against a Junior Assistant who suffered a workplace injury. The Court directed reinstatement and payment of benefits for the period the petitioner was employed post-termination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated, benefits were to be granted from 10.06.2016 to 05.03.2017, and Rs.2000/- costs were awarded.

V.Sethukumar (Ex-Serviceman) Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.8811 of 2016

¶7

V.Sethukumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai. 2.The Senior Regional Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation(TASMAC), Madurai Regional, Madurai. 3.The General Manager Tamil Nadu Ex-Serviceman Corporation Limited, (Texco) No.2, West Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 4.The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Sivagangai. ... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

1/6

¶11

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of termination passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings in his Na.Ka.No.V3/128/2013 dated 13.06.2016 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Venkata Subramanian For R-1, R-2 and R-4 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-3 : No Appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 13.06.2016.

¶16

The petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in TASMAC Godown, Sivagangai District on consolidated basis from 25.09.2012 onwards. On 10.06.2016, the petitioner fell down in staircase and he sustained grievous injury in his right hand. Hence, the petitioner could not report to duty. The said fact was intimated to the respondents and the respondents without any notice had passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2016, wherein, it is stated that since the petitioner had injury in his right hand, he has not reported to duty and he will not be able to carry on the duty in future also. Hence, the

¶17

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

¶18

2/6

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶20

respondents relieved the petitioner from service through impugned order. The

¶21

relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:

¶22

lh];khf; rptfq;if khtl;l nkyhsh; mYtyfj;jpy; ghh;it-1y; fhZk; fojq;fspd;go gzpghpe;J te;j blf;];nfh ,sepiy cjtpahsh; jpU.V.nrJFkhh; (TEXCO No.129644, Project No.1926) vd;gth;> tyJ if Kwpt[ Vw;gl;Ls;sjhy; 17.06.2016 tiu tpLg;g[ nfl;Ls;sjhYk;> Vw;fdnt ,Uf;if gzpfs; njf;fkile;Js;sjhf ghh;it 2-y; fz;lgo fplq;F nkyhsh; (bgh.) mth;fs; mwpf;if mspj;Js;sjhYk;> mjd;gpwF gzpf;F te;jhYk; KG cw;rhfj;Jld; mYtyf vGj;J gzpfis bra;a ,ayhJ vd;gjhYk;> Kf;fpa mYtyf gzpfs; njf;fkiltjhYk; eph;thf eyd;fUjp jpU.V.nrJFkhh; vd;gtiu ,sepiy cjtpahsh; gzpapypUe;J lh];khf; khtl;l nkyhsh; mYtyfk; fplq;F gphptpypUe;J 14.06.2016 Kw;gfy; Kjy; tpLtpj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶23

The impugned order is absolutely rude and crude without any empathy. On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that subsequently the writ petitioner was allowed to join service on 11.11.2016 and he had rendered service until 05.03.2017 and he had left the service without intimating to the respondents.

¶24

Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant all monetary benefits and service benefits from 10.06.2016 to 05.03.2017. From 05.03.2017, the petitioner has left the service. Subsequently, the contract between the first

¶25

& second respondents with third respondent was terminated on January 2020.

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶29

This Court is not expressing any opinion from 05.03.2017 until 2020 and if the petitioner is having any rights to claim the same, it is left open. The respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the petitioner as cost of this litigation. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed on cost of Rs.2000/payable to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

11.04.2023

¶32

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr

¶33

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

¶34

4/6

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶36

¶37

1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Chennai.

¶38

2.The Senior Regional Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation(TASMAC), Madurai Regional, Madurai.

¶39

3.The General Manager Tamil Nadu Ex-Serviceman Corporation Limited, (Texco) No.2, West Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet,

¶40

Chennai - 600 015.

¶41

4.The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Sivagangai.

¶42

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

¶43

5/6

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶45

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶46

Nsr

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.11521 of 2016

¶48

11.04.2023

¶49

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

¶50

6/6

V.Sethukumar (Ex-Serviceman) v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sethukumar (Ex-Serviceman) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pon Nandagopal Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Lourthammal, Vs the District Collector

V. Nagaraj Kannan, Vs the Chief Educational

Chandralega .v Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Subramaniyan, Vs the Registrar

N.Sankara Nainar, Vs the District Educational