Allowed

T.Packirisamy v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC26 Nov 2024CMP(MD)/15525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of an application seeking condonation of a 550-day delay in filing a writ appeal regarding a service dispute. The court allowed the petition upon payment of Rs. 5,000 as court fees.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed, condoning the delay of 550 days, on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 5,000 to the District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam.

T.Packirisamy Vs the Presiding Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.15525 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and The HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶6

CMP(MD) No.15525 of 2024 in WA(MD)No.SR76055 of 2023

¶7

T.PACKIRISAMY

¶8

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE.

¶11

2 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KUMBAKONAM.

¶12

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 550 days in filing the writ appeal W.A.SR.(MD).No.76055 of 2023.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

CMP(MD) No.15525 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER in WA(MD)No.SR76055 of 2023:

¶18

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the Learned Judge dated 09.03.2022 in W.P(MD)No.5368 of 2015 dismissing the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for by directing the 2^nd respondent to pay all benefits to the appellant, including back wages and terminal and pension benefits by treating him to have been reinstated in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits and to have worked up to the dated of his retirement.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 5368/ 2015 :

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the rrecords from the 1st Respondent Labour Court relating to the Impugned awarrd dated 02.09.13 passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D. No. 146 of 2007, quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and award cost.

¶21

ORDER : This Civil Miscellaneous petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.ARUNACHALAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.RAMAIAH, Standing counsel on behalf of the 2^nd Respondent, the Court made the following order:-

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J. ]

¶23

Having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit

¶24

filed in support of the petition, this petition is allowed and the delay is condoned on

¶25

condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/3

¶27

CMP(MD) No.15525 of 2024

¶28

to the credit of Account No.10767823177, towards District Siddha Medical Officer,

¶29

CCRI, Periyakulam.

¶30

sd/26/11/2024 / TRUE COPY /

¶31

/12/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶32

MR TO 1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE.

¶33

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM.

¶34

COPY TO:

¶35

THE DISTRICT SIDDHA MEDICAL OFFICER, CCRI, PERIYAKULAM.

¶36

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.15525 of 2024 in WA(MD)No.SR76055 of 2023 Date :26/11/2024

¶37

SS/GSV/SAR- /06/12/2024/ 3P/4C

¶38

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

T.Packirisamy v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Packirisamy 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

The District Collector Vs N Chitrasenan

V.S.Arul Rajan Vs Registrar General

Albert Raj Vs The District Collector

The Assistant Commissioner II (St) Vs Ramesh Exports Private Ltd.

Tamilselvi Vs The Authorized Officer

The Director of School Education Vs D.Rajakumar