Remanded

The Management of Metroplitan v. B. Kesavan (Edp No D58057)

Madras HC27 Sept 2024WP/28378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order rejecting an approval petition due to alleged delay. The court noted a discrepancy in the recorded date versus the seal date and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition disposed of; matter remitted to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration after rechecking the actual filing date and issuing a fresh notice.

The Management of Metroplitan Vs B. Kesavan (Edp No… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.28378 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.28378 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.30941 of 2024

¶7

The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.B.Kesavan (EDP.No.D58057)

¶10

2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed in Approval Petition No.179 of 2022 dated 20.12.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gauthama Raj

¶14

For Respondents : Mrs.M.Jayanthy, AGP for R2

¶15

Page No.1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.28378 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call

¶20

for the records relating to the order passed in Approval Petition No.179 of 2022 dated 20.12.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and to quash the same.

¶21

2. Heard Mr.C.Gauthamaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Jayanthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

3 . Mr.C.Gauthamaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

submitted that the copy of the order has been submitted to the first respondent on 30.06.2022 and it contains a seal showing the date as 30.06.2022. The approval petition was also filed on 30.06.2022. However, in the impugned order, it had been stated that the approval petition had been filed only on 12.07.2022 and no other reasons have been stated for rejecting the approval petition.

¶24

Page No.2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.28378 of 2024

¶27

4 . In fact, the first respondent workman was set ex parte even

¶28

in the approval petition proceedings on the observation that the approval petition has been filed after a considerable delay. Since the records show the fact otherwise, I feel it is appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration and pass orders after rechecking the actual date during which the approval petition has been filed and also by issuing a fresh notice to the first respondent by giving him an opportunity to make his submissions.

¶29

5 . With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed.

¶30

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

Index : Yes /No 27.09.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk To

¶32

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

¶33

Page No.3 of 4

¶34

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

W.P.No.28378 of 2024

R.N.MANJULA, J.

gsk

W.P.No.28378 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.30941 of 2024

¶39

27.09.2024

¶40

Page No.4 of 4

¶41

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

The Management of Metroplitan v. B. Kesavan (Edp No D58057)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Metroplitan v. B. Kesavan (Edp No D58057)

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.Ramachandran Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

Abc Matric Higher Secondary School, Vs Deputy Director (Ins.Iv)

R.Jayakumar Vs K.Manivasan

The Management, Vs Kulothungan

M. Arul Eliyas Vs Labour Officer