Dismissed

The Management v. the Presiding Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2024WP/27421/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a Labour Court Award. The Court held that the petitioner was ready to offer employment; thus, the petitioner must accept or reject the offer, and dismissed the petition upon the respondent's failure to join duty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P No.27421 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.P.No.27421 of 2012 and MP.No.1 of 2012

¶7

The Management, Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers Unions Limited, Pachapalayam Post, Pachapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 010.

¶8

.. Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶10

2.V.Jayachandran

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.119 of 2005 passed on 23.02.2012 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Narayanamoorthy

¶14

For Respondents : R1 – Court

¶15

Mr.P.Saravanan for R2.

¶16

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

1/3

W.P No.27421 of 2012

O R D E R

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶21

appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to give employment to the second respondent, but the second respondent has not approached the petitioner. Earlier, the learned counsel for the respondent also agreed to the employment with the petitioner.

¶22

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represented that the second respondent has not joined the duty. While so, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal by observing that, when the Petitioner / Management is itself ready to provide employment to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to accept it or not. Therefore, with the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

11.12.2024

¶24

Index: Yes/No. Internet/Yes/No drl

¶25

¶26

1.The The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore.

¶27

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

2/3

W.P No.27421 of 2012

P.DHANABAL.J.

drl

W.P.No.27421 of 2012 and MP.No.2 of 2012

¶33

11.12.2024

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

The Management v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramalingam Vs State Rep by

K.Jagannathan Vs the State Rep by Its

Karthik Vs State Rep. by

B.Vijay Babu Vs the Commissioner of Labour

Surataiyan @ Prabaharan Vs The State rep by

Surataiyan @ Prabaharan Vs the State Rep by