Dismissed

M/S.Tamilnadu Cements v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC25 Sept 2023WP(MD)/11981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition for issuance of Certiorari to quash the order in the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, holding it infructuous as the gratuity amount was paid and settlement accepted by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

M/S.Tamilnadu Cements Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11981 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11981 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No.10943 of 2018

¶7

M/s. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Alangulam Cement Works, Tamil Nadu Cement Post – 626 127 Via Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Rep. By its Unit Head ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act Bharathi Ula Road, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 002.

¶10

G. Paulraj ....Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶12

of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in P.G.No.27 of 2017 and quash the order dated 20.03.2018 passed therein.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.11981 of 2018

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj for R1 Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Chengizkhan O R D E R

¶17

Mr.K.Chengizkhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing

¶18

for the second respondent submits that an amount of Rs.9,41,912/-

¶19

was paid to the petitioner towards settlement of gratuity to the petitioner in compliance of the order of the first respondent dated 20.03.2018.

¶20

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also accepted

¶21

the receipt of the said payment and submits that in view of the same, no further adjudication is required in this case.

¶22

3. The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

and the learned counsel for the second respondent is placed on record.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.11981 of 2018

¶27

4. In view of the above factual position, in the considered

¶28

opinion of this Court, no further adjudication is required in this Writ Petition and it has become infructuous.

¶29

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶30

infructuous.

¶31

6. No costs.

¶32

7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶33

closed.

¶34

25.09.2023

¶35

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No CM

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

To,

¶39

W.P(MD)No.11981 of 2018

¶40

To, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act Bharathi Ula Road, K. Pudur, Madurai 625 002.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.11981 of 2018

¶44

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.11981 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No.10943 of 2018

¶47

25.09.2023

¶48

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

¶49

M/S.Tamilnadu Cements v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Tamilnadu Cements v. the Deputy Commissioner of

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

M.V. Murugesapandian Vs the Commissioner

M.Mumtaj Begum Vs the State Rep. by

P.Banumathi, W/O.Mani, Vs the State Rep. by

S. Kalaiselvi, Vs Arivozhi

A.Balu, Vs the Managing Director

Pattaiah, Vs the Principal Accountant