Disposed

G.Uthayasuriyan v. The Management

Madras HC10 Jun 2025WP(MD)/8809/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dismissed workman, whose punishment was modified to compulsory retirement by this Court with a direction to release terminal benefits, sought a mandamus to enforce compliance. The Corporation stated all terminal benefits were released on 23.02.2025 and the petitioner raised no serious dispute. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

G.Uthayasuriyan Vs The Management — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8809 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8809 of 2025

G.Uthayasuriyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Management, The State of Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, District Collector's Office, Dindigul – 4.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 05.10.2024 and to release the quantified benefits, including beneficial pay and pensionary benefits, as per the order of this Court in W.P(MD) No.9329 of 2014, dated 13.03.2018, within a time to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maharajan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.8809 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed by a workmen seeking a Mandamus directing the respondent Transport Corporation to consider his representation, dated 05.10.2024 and pass orders.

¶20

2. A perusal of the representation reveals that, it has been sent seeking compliance of the order of this Court, dated 13.03.2018 in W.P(MD) No.9329 of 2014.

¶21

3. The petitioner herein was working as a Special Grade Assistant Trade's Man in the respondent Transport Corporation and was dismissed from service and he raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.1 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli. The Labour Court was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Transport Corporation to reinstate him in service with continuity of the service.

¶22

4. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the Corporation in W.P(MD) No.9329 of 2014. This Court, by an order, dated 13.03.2018 had modified the punishment as that of compulsory retirement. This order has

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.8809 of 2025

¶26

attained finality. This Court has further directed the petitioner/Management to release all the terminal benefits which are due to him. The present writ petition has been filed with a grievance that the terminal benefits have not been released.

¶27

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/ Transport Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that all the terminal benefits have been released on 23.02.2025. However, no serious dispute has been raised on the side of the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of the order of this Court. In such circumstances, the question of issuing further Mandamus to the respondent/Transport Corporation to release the terminal benefits does not arise.

¶28

6. Recording the same, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

10.06.2025

¶30

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.8809 of 2025

¶34

To The Management, The State of Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, District Collector's Office, Dindigul – 4.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.8809 of 2025

¶38

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶39

ebsi

¶40

W.P(MD)No.8809 of 2025

¶41

10.06.2025

¶42

5/5

¶43

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

G.Uthayasuriyan v. The Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G.Uthayasuriyan v. The Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Santhampatti Village Panchayath Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (i/c)

M/S.Lakshmi Vilas Bakery Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management, Vs the Appellate Authority

S.Rengaraj Vs Singaravelan

Secretary Vs the Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act

Murugaiah .R Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour