Disposed

R.Palanisamy v. The Appellate Authority under the payment

Madras HC8 Jun 2024WP/20519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a matter under the Payment of Gratuity Act, petitioner and second respondent settled before the High Court Lok Adalat. The court recorded the settlement amount and closed the petition, ordering refund of court fees as per the Legal Services Authorities Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; settlement amount paid; court fees refunded to parties.

R.Palanisamy Vs The Appellate Authority under the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 8th day of June 2024 LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶3

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

¶4

Presided over by

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr.M.Pughazhendi, District Judge (Retd.) Mr.R.Ravi Sekaran (Advocate)

¶8

W.P.No.20519 of 2022

¶9

R.Palanisamy ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Additional Commissioner of Labour, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶12

2.Pollachi Sarvodaya Sangh, Rep. by its Secretary, 36, Venkatraman Street, Pollachi - 642 001, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶13

This case is taken up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. There is no appearance for the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the petitioner is present. Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. The second respondent is also present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

¶15

parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶16

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶17

The petitioner and the second respondent are present before this Court

¶18

today.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶20

It is reported by the petitioner and the second respondent that they

¶21

had arrived at a settlement and the second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) to the petitioner. The aforesaid settlement is recorded.

¶22

In view of the above settlement, the Writ Petition stands closed.

¶23

R.Palanisamy

¶24

1.The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Additional Commissioner of Labour, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Counsel for 1st respondent

¶28

2.Pollachi Sarvodaya Sangh, Rep. by its Secretary, 36, Venkatraman Street, Pollachi - 642 001, Coimbatore District.

¶29

This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶30

The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

Judge

Member

Member

To: The parties/Advocate concerned

¶35

Copy to:

¶36

1.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶37

3.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.

¶38

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

SUNDER MOHAN, J

Sni

W.P.No.20519 of 2022

08.06.2024

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

R.Palanisamy v. The Appellate Authority under the payment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Palanisamy v. The Appellate Authority under the payment

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

N.Nagaraj, M/45 Yrs, Vs the State Represented by

Yuvaraj, M/a 22 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Its

K.Maheswari, Aged 30 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Suryakala Vs Tamizselvan

M.Thirumavalavan Vs K.Namagiri Lakshmi

M.Rajasekar Vs State by