Disposed

M. Karthick v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC12 Jun 2025WP(MD)/5813/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that writ petitions challenging an award under the Employee's Compensation Act are not maintainable when a statutory appeal remedy exists under Section 30 of the Act. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to file appeals, and time was excluded for calculating limitation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to file appeal; time excluded for limitation calculation.

M. Karthick Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).Nos.5813 and 15932 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4235, 12058 and 12059 of 2025

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025:

M.Karthick

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, Barathi Ula Street, K.Pudur,

¶12

Madurai – 625 002.

¶13

P.Pradeep.

¶14

A.Ganesan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of 1^st respondent in E.C.No.114 of 2023 and quash the order dated 20.11.2024.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran For R1 : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.J.Gunaseela Muthiah For R3 : Mr.A.Sankararama Subramanian

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.15932 of 2025:

A.Ganesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, Barathi Ula Street, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 002.

¶25

P.Pradeep.

¶26

M.Karthick

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 20.11.2024 in E.C.No.114 of 2023 was passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankararama Subramanian For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.J.Gunaseela Muthiah For R3 : Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

These two writ petitions have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in E.C.No.114 of 2023, on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Employee's Compensation Act, Madurai, challenging the award passed by him on 20.11.2024.

¶35

According to the learned counsels appearing for the

¶36

writ petitioners, the statutory authority has not properly considered the submissions raised by them and therefore, the present writ petitions are maintainable.

¶37

This Court is of the considered opinion that when an appeal remedy is provided under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶38

As far as W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025 is concerned, the period between 25.02.2025 till the date of receipt of the order shall stand excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation for filing an appeal.

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶42

As far as W.P.(MD)No.15932 of 2025 is concerned, the period between 09.06.2025 till the date of receipt of the order shall stand excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation for filing an appeal.

¶43

In view of the above said deliberations, both the writ petitions are

¶44

disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

12.06.2025

¶46

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶47

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the parties.

¶48

4/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶51

¶52

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, Barathi Ula Street, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 002.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.5813 of 2025

¶56

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶57

rgm

¶58

W.P.(MD).Nos.5813 and 15932 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4235, 12058 and 12059 of 2025

¶59

12.06.2025

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

M. Karthick v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Karthick v. The Joint Commissioner of Labour

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

V.Gopalakrishnan, E.C.No.94592 Vs M. Jaikishan

S.Sivagurunathan Vs S.Ponnappan

The Management of Daily Thanthi Vs v.Boopathi

The Commissioner Vs the Inspector of Labour

Karuppanna Achari Vs Surulivel

V.Ramasamy Vs the State of Tn., Rep.by Its