Managing Director Vs. Mohammad Jamil

Managing Director vs Mohammad Jamil

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 10, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1044629

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1044629
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Dec 10, 2012
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Managing Director

Respondent

Mohammad Jamil

Excerpt

.....director, mpsrtc and another versus mohammed jamil 10.12.2012. shri p.k.mishra for the petitioners.challenging an order passed by the labour court, khandwa in a proceeding initiated before him under section 33(c)(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and the order for payment of `10,351/- to the respondent/workman, this writ petition has been filed. respondent was working as a driver in the mp state road transport corporation and was granted retirement under the vrs scheme. as his pensionary claim and post retiral dues were not paid, it seems that he initiated proceedings under section 33(c)(2) of the id act. it was his contention that he was entitled to a sum of `6,20,784/-, out of which only a sum of `2,23,498/- has been paid. accordingly, seeking payment of the remaining amount of `3,97,355/-, the application was filed and after adjudication of the dispute in question, initially in the original application and subsequently in the review application vide orders - annexures p/2 and p/3, a sum of `10,351/- is directed to be paid to respondent. having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the order passed by the labour court, it is seen that the direction for payment of `10,351/- has been issued based on the admission made by the petitioner/corporation in the written statement filed before the labour court. once the amount determined for payment i.e…. `10,351/-, is based on the admission made by the petitioners themselves, in the proceedings held before the labour court, i see no reason to 2 managing director, mpsrtc and another versus mohammed jamil interfere into the matter. it is clear from the records that the petitioners in the proceedings held before the labour court had made an admission that respondent is entitled to the sum of `10,351/- and based on such an admission when the amount is determined and directed to be paid, i am of the considered view that the labour court has not committed any error warranting interference......

Full Judgment

Managing Director, MPSRTC and another versus Mohammed Jamil 10.12.2012.

Shri P.K.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order passed by the Labour Court, Khandwa in a proceeding initiated before him under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the order for payment of `10,351/- to the respondent/workman, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondent was working as a Driver in the MP State Road Transport Corporation and was granted retirement under the VRS Scheme.

As his pensionary claim and post retiral dues were not paid, it seems that he initiated proceedings under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act.

It was his contention that he was entitled to a sum of `6,20,784/-, out of which only a sum of `2,23,498/- has been paid.

Accordingly, seeking payment of the remaining amount of `3,97,355/-, the application was filed and after adjudication of the dispute in question, initially in the original application and subsequently in the review application vide orders - Annexures P/2 and P/3, a sum of `10,351/- is directed to be paid to respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the order passed by the Labour Court, it is seen that the direction for payment of `10,351/- has been issued based on the admission made by the petitioner/Corporation in the written statement filed before the Labour court.

Once the amount determined for payment i.e….

`10,351/-, is based on the admission made by the petitioners themselves, in the proceedings held before the Labour Court, I see no reason to 2 Managing Director, MPSRTC and another versus Mohammed Jamil interfere into the matter.

It is clear from the records that the petitioners in the proceedings held before the Labour Court had made an admission that respondent is entitled to the sum of `10,351/- and based on such an admission when the amount is determined and directed to be paid, I am of the considered view that the Labour Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the petitioneRs.this writ petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Managing Director vs Mohammad Jamil Same Subject Labour and Industrial