Allowed

V.Jayalakshmi v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Apr 2024WP/3813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, widow of a deceased employee, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to implement the labor commissioner's compensation order and recover dues from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The court directed the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to recover the awarded amount as per the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.

V.Jayalakshmi Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶6

Tmt. V. Jayalakshmi W/o. Late Vengatesan, No.1/52, Malaikuravaran Street, Thulukanoor Village, Kaillanatham Post, Alathur Taluk, Salem, Salem District – 636 141.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem – 636 001. 2.The Tahsildar, Salem Taluk Salem – 636 007.

¶10

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007. ...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶15

India, with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent/Tahsildar to implement the order of the 1^st respondent vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.31157/2021/E4 dated 30.11.2021 and to recover the amount as per the certificate issued on 28.10.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem as on date and to remit the same as per the certificate apart from any other damages for the sufferings caused to petitioner by negligent act of the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pichappa

¶17

For Respondents R1 and R2 : Mr.RU.Dinesh Raj Kumar Additional Government Pleader R3 : Mr.K.Raja Standing Counsel for TNSTC (Salem)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent/Tahsildar to implement the order of the 1^st respondent vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.31157/2021/E4 dated 30.11.2021 and to recover the amount as per the certificate issued on 28.10.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem as on date and to remit the same as per the certificate apart from any other damages for the sufferings caused to petitioner by negligent act of the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

2. Mr.T.Pichappa, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶24

the petitioner husband by name Mr.Vengatesan, joined the R3/ The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation as conductor. On 22.04.2015, the petitioner husband was on duty and an accident took place at 01.15 AM and the petitioner husband sustained grievous injuries and died ultimately on 12.08.2015.

¶25

3. The petitioner filed an application before the concerned authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 at Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem, after conducting an enquiry on 27.12.2019 in EC.Case No.12 of 2019 was allowed directing the 3^rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,36,680/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12.08.2015 until the date of realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. On 22.10.2020, the 3^rd respondent without depositing the interest amount has simply deposited only the awarded sum of Rs.7,36,680/- and has failed to deposit the 12 % interest amount and funereal expenses of Rs.5000/-. In respect of balance amount of Rs. 4,99,214/-, the Joint Commissioner of Labour forwarded the directions to Respondent No.1/ District Collector who in turn has directed the 2^nd Respondent/Tahsildar to implement the directions as per the proceedings dated 30.11.2021 as per the certificate issued on 28.10.2021,

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶29

R2/Tahsildar to initiate the action. However, R2, Tahsildar has not taken

¶30

any notice and therefore, sought for mandamus. Learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the respondent No.2 has preferred CMA.No.551 of 2022 for setting aside the order dated 27.12.2019, however the said CMA was dismissed by the Commissioner of Employees Compensation.

¶32

4. In view of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the second respondent to initiate proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 as per the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.31157/2021/E4 dated 30.11.2021 issued on 28.10.2021 by the first respondent by following due process of law, as quickly as possible but not less than six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

05.04.2024

¶34

Index :Yes/No Speaking :Yes/No Neutral Citation Case:Yes/No nst

¶35

To:

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶39

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem – 636 001.

¶40

2.The Tahsildar, Salem Taluk Salem – 636 007.

¶41

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.

¶42

DR D.NAGARJUN,J. nst

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶46

W.P.No.3813 of 2022

¶47

05.04.2024

¶48

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

¶49

V.Jayalakshmi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jayalakshmi v. the District Collector

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

Tmt. R.Valarmathi Vs Management of K. 879

J.Narmadha Vs The Management

C.Venkatesan, Vs The Presiding Officer

N.Gangabai, Vs the Inspector General of

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs The Presiding Officer

Srinivasan Durgachalam Vs the Management