Dismissed

M. Sathiyamoorthy, v. the Proprietor

Madras HC25 Sept 2024WP(MD)/7325/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order addressed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against Labour Court awards. The High Court dismissed both petitions as not pressed after the petitioner informed the court that he was abandoning the proceedings. No substantive legal principles were discussed.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner.

M. Sathiyamoorthy, Vs the Proprietor — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶7

M.Sathiyamoorthy

¶8

...Petitioner in both WPs

¶9

¶10

1.The Proprietor, Athirstam & Thinaboomi Dailies, 9, Dindigul Main Road, Vilankudi, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

¶12

...Respondents in both WPs

¶13

PRAYER in WP(MD) No.7325 of 2014 : Writ Petition filed under Article

¶14

226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the award of the Labour Court in C.P. No.37 of 2010 dated 29.02.2012 and quash the same in so far as it relates to denial of backwages to the Petitioner consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay entire back wages to the Petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶18

PRAYER in WP(MD) No.3784 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the award of the Labour Court in C.P.No.116 of 2013, dated 16.03.2015 and quash the same consequently directing the first respondent Management to pay wages to the petitioner from 01.04.2010 to 30.09.2013.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi For R1 : Mr.V.A.S.Kalaiselvam (In both WPs)

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

These writ petitions are filed as against the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P. Nos.37 of 2010 & 116 of 2016, dated 29.02.2012 &

¶22

16.03.2015 respectively.

¶23

2.When these writ petitions are taken up for consideration

¶24

today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is

¶25

not pressing these writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶29

3.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed.

¶31

25.09.2024 (1/2)

¶32

NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No vrn

¶33

¶34

1.The Proprietor, Athirstam & Thinaboomi Dailies, 9, Dindigul Main Road, Vilankudi, Madurai.

¶35

2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶37

WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶38

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

¶39

vrn

¶40

Common Order made in WP(MD)Nos.7325 of 2014 & 3784 of 2016

¶41

25.09.2024

¶42

(1/2)

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

M. Sathiyamoorthy, v. the Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sathiyamoorthy, v. the Proprietor

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

Muthu Esaki @ Vaganam Vs The Inspector of Police

The Manager Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

Srimathi Indiragandhi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Periyasami Vs Kanagavel

K. Kalaichamy Vs the Presiding Officer

General Manager Vs S.Velmurugan