Allowed

M/s.A.693 Vellabommanpatti v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and

Madras HC19 Jun 2024WP(MD)/10659/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an ex parte order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act in an employment termination dispute. The court found valid recourse to the petitioner's traceable absence and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.03.2024 is set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner.

M/s.A.693 Vellabommanpatti Vs The Appellate… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).No.9533 of 2024

¶8

M/.A 693 Vellabommanpatti, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Represented by its, Administrator, Vellabommanpatti, Thummalagundu (Post), Vadamadurai (via), Vedasandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶12

2.K.Manivannan

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 issued by the first respondent made in TNSE.Appeal No.4/23 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mahendran For R-1 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate For R-2 : Mr.S.Somaselvakumar

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent and Mr.S.Somaselvakumar, learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the first respondent dated 25.03.2024 made in TNSE.Appeal No.4/23.

¶22

Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶23

that the petitioner Management has challenged the award of the Joint Commissioner of Labour dated 25.03.2024 in TNSE.Appeal No.4/23 by allowing the appeal preferred by the second respondent challenging the termination order.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶27

The limited arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed exparte without hearing the petitioner. In the order, it is stated that the counsel for the Management has filed Vakalat, but he did not file any counter and participated in the proceedings. The petitioner who had engaged the counsel and filed vakalat during the appeal proceedings ought to have made his appearance and contested the appeal by avoiding an exparte order.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 25.01.2024, when the case was originally posted, it happened to be a local holiday and in view of that he has lost the track of case. Hence, the absence of the petitioner is not intentional.

¶29

Since the order has been passed exparte and the petitioner has stated sufficient reasons to set aside the exparte order, I feel in the interest of justice, the first respondent shall take the opportunity of passing an order on merits after hearing both the parties. In order to enable the same, the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 made in TNSE.Appeal No.4/23 passed by the first respondent should be set aside.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶33

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 made in TNSE.Appeal No.4/23 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent and dispose the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner by giving him an opportunity. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

19.06.2024

¶35

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶36

To:

¶37

The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶41

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶42

Nsr

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.10659 of 2024

¶44

19.06.2024

¶45

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

¶46

5/5

M/s.A.693 Vellabommanpatti v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.A.693 Vellabommanpatti v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and

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

C.Kuttithai Vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

B.Mohammed Siraj Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

G.Saravanan Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Suriyanath J.K Vs The Joint Director (Vocational)

Dr.G.Muruganantham Vs a. Karthik I.A.S.

V.Parameshwaran Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies