The General Manager, Vs. M.E.Kaja Jainullapaudee

The General Manager, vs M.E.Kaja Jainullapaudee

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 03, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/965435

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/965435
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria
Decided On: Jan 03, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The General Manager,

Respondent

M.E.Kaja Jainullapaudee

Excerpt

.....manager, state express transport corporation, chennai ... petitioner/petitioner/1st respondent vs. m.e.kaja jainullapaudeen ... respondent/respondent/ claimant prayer petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india to set aside the order and fair order passed in i.a.no.79 of 2012 dated 29.11.2012 in i.d.no.43 of 2005, on the file of the labour court, tirunelveli. !for petitioner ... mr.p.prabhakaran ^ * * * * * :order this civil revision petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 29.11.2012, passed in i.a.no.79 of 2012 in i.d.no.43 of 2005, by the labour court, tirunelveli.2. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client - the general manager, state express transport corporation, to the effect that i.d.no.43 of 2005 pending in the labour court, tirunelveli, has become infructuous for various reasons as set out by him in his separate i.a.no.79 of 2012, but the labour court in its impugned order simply rejected the prayer of the revision petitioner for dropping the proceedings.4. a mere running of the eye over the order of the labour court would clearly demonstrate and display that the labour court, strictly in accordance with the objectives of the provisions of the industrial disputes act and the industrial jurisprudence, correctly observed that the labour court is enjoined to proceed with the i.d. and render its verdict in accordance with law and in the middle itself, it cannot simply hold that the i.d. has become infructuous etc., over and above that, as against such dismissal of the i.a., no civil revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of india is maintainable. if that civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india is entertained, those provisions of the labour court would be set at naught.5. with these observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed......

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

03. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No. 3 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai ... Petitioner/Petitioner/1st Respondent Vs. M.E.Kaja Jainullapaudeen ... Respondent/Respondent/ Claimant Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and fair order passed in I.A.No.79 of 2012 dated 29.11.2012 in I.D.No.43 of 2005, on the file of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Prabhakaran ^ * * * * * :ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 29.11.2012, passed in I.A.No.79 of 2012 in I.D.No.43 of 2005, by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client - the General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, to the effect that I.D.No.43 of 2005 pending in the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, has become infructuous for various reasons as set out by him in his separate I.A.No.79 of 2012, but the Labour Court in its impugned order simply rejected the prayer of the revision petitioner for dropping the proceedings.

4. A mere running of the eye over the order of the Labour Court would clearly demonstrate and display that the Labour Court, strictly in accordance with the objectives of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial Jurisprudence, correctly observed that the Labour Court is enjoined to proceed with the I.D. and render its verdict in accordance with law and in the middle itself, it cannot simply hold that the I.D. has become infructuous etc., Over and above that, as against such dismissal of the I.A., no Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. If that Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained, those provisions of the Labour Court would be set at naught.

5. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. ssl To The Labour Curt, Tirunelveli.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties The General Manager, vs M.E.Kaja Jainullapaudee Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.Rajasuria