Chennai Court February 2011 Judgments
K.R.Nagarajan Vs. the Superintendent and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner, who was working as a Grade II Warder at the Central Prison, Puzhal filed O.A.No.8492 of 2000, seeking to set aside the order dated 07.11.2000 passed by the first respondent. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction in basic scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Though in the impugned order, it was indicated that he was entitled to prefer a statutory appeal, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by waiving the appellate remedy.2. The Tribunal ordered notice of motion on 23.11.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent had filed a reply affidavit dated 06.01.2001. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.05.2004. The petitioner also filed an additional typed set containing enquiry report which led to the ultimate imposition of penalty.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.39796 of 2006.4....
Tag this Judgment!P.Palani Vs. the District Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner who was employed as a Supervisor of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (For short TASMAC) shop No.9271 in Tiruvannamalai Town, has filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge an order, dated 18.8.2010 passed by the respondent District Manager, TASMAC, Tiruvannamalai District. By the impugned communication, the petitioner was informed that on the basis of the allegation that a theft had taken place in the TASMAC shop on 24.2.2006 and an amount of Rs.34,500/- was stolen. A claim was sent to the United India Insurance Company. The said Insurance Company by their communication, dated 2.8.2010 informed that the criminal case was closed on the basis of mistake of fact. They had repudiated the insurance claim made on the basis of theft which is covered by the policy. The said letter was given to the petition on 6.8.2010. In view of the fact that the amount stolen will not be got back to the TASMAC, the petitioner will have to make good the loss. Therefore, the pet...
Tag this Judgment!The National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Controlling Authority an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is the National Textile Corporation Limited represented by its General Manager (P & IR), Southern Regional Office, Coimbatore. They have filed the writ petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cum Labour Enforcement Officer, Puducherry, dated 20.03.2009.2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.04.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. The contesting respondents, who are 424 workers sought to be made as a party second respondent in the writ petition. It is shown in the cause title that the second respondent is one R.Rajammal and other 423 workers represented by B.Mohan Dass of Swadeshi-Bharathi Panchalai Thozhilalar Urimai Padukappu Sangam.3. It is seen from the records that 424 workers belonging to the third respondent Shri Bharathi Mills,Puducherry moved the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act claiming unpaid gratuity amount as well as th...
Tag this Judgment!P.T.Thulasingam Vs. the Accounts Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8828 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to pay pension and other retirement benefits taking into account the service rendered by him from 01.02.1957 to 16.07.1967 in the school run by the Chennai Municipal Corporation under the control of the third respondent.2. The writ petition was admitted on 01.12.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the second respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 20.06.2002. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 14.02.2011 was filed.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.44811 of 2006.4. It is an admitted case that the petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Corporation School under the control of the third respondent and worked in the school from 1957 to 1967. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Graduate Assistant in a Government Higher Secondary School and worked in...
Tag this Judgment!C.Arunachalam and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsildar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORDER1. In this revision, the revision petitioners challenge the order of the court below in rejecting the reference made by the first respondent.2. The land of an extent of 2.62.0 hectares in S.No.1254/2 in Erode Village was acquired and award enquiry was conducted on 5.9.1986 and notice under sections 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.8.1996 and individual notices under section 9(3) and section 10 of the Act were also served and one Chenniappa Gounder appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and expressed his willingness to receive compensation under protest and requested the officer to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, the matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by the legal representatives of the original claimant that the original claimant received the award amount under protest and requested the Acquisition Officer for higher compensation and therefore, there was a valid refere...
Tag this Judgment!Rt.Rev.Aruldoss and ors. Vs. Moses Thambi Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
1. The first respondent in the writ appeal has filed W.P.No.45886 of 2002 before a learned single Judge of this Court, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents therein/the respondents 2 and 3 herein to take immediate follow up action to implement the findings contained in the results of the enquiry of the first respondent therein/the Inspector General of Registration dated 23.7.2002 communicated by the second respondent/District Registrar in letter No.1481/A3/02, dated 2.8.2002 and letter Ms.No.128, dated 8.11.2002 of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai-9 relating to Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Trichi and forbear the third respondent therein/the appellant herein from functioning as President of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church or discharge any functions in his capacity as President of the Church and direct the fourth respondent therein/the Treasurer of the Church to forthwith take action to recov...
Tag this Judgment!S.Johnson David Gnanaraj Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act to disburse the service benefits payable to one late S.Wilson Sundar Raj, the deceased workman employed by the second respondent management together with interest at the rate of 24% lying to his credit as per the order made by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G. Appeal No.52/92, dated 19.9.1994. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 11.6.2008. On notice form this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Since the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, this Court directed the original records to be produced. It was also summoned and circulated to this court. 2.The second respondent though represented by their counsel informed that pursuant to the order of the authority, they had deposited the amount and they have been formally mad...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. The petitioner in these three writ petitions is the same Management.2. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.22145/2005), the challenge was to the order dated 06.07.2005 passed by the third respondent ESI claiming interest for the delayed payment of the dues towards the Corporation. In the second writ petition (W.No.22146/2005), the challenge is to the order of the respondent ESI dated 28.09.1999 and confirmed by a subsequent recovery application dated 10.01.2000 demanding payment of contribution together with interest totalling a sum of Rs.52,44,819/-, which amount had been paid under protest and they seek for a direction to refund the amount. In the third writ petition (W.P.No.22147/2005), the challenge is to the order of the State Government made in G.O.Ms.No.99 Labour and Employment Department, dated 24.06.2005, wherein the State Government cancelled the earlier G.O.(D)No.1108, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.12.2002 granting exemption from paying in...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Sri Karpaga Vinayaka Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is one and the same establishment in both the writ petitions. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.38189/2005), the petitioner challenges the recovery notice dated 07.11.2005 and seeks to set aside the same. By the impugned notice, the bankers of the petitioner viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruchirapalli -2 was directed to remit the amounts to the respondent ESI for the liability fixed on the petitioner in respect of the amounts payable by one Hotel Leela and Sri Krishna Appalam for the period from 13.07.2004 to 01.08.2005, amounting to Rs.4,37,906/-.2. The writ petition was admitted on 29.11.2005. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay.3. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, the same petitioner filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.41268 of 2005, seeking to challenge the notices dated 21.02.2005 and 04.09.2000. In the notice dated 21.02.2005, the petitioner's hotel was informed that there was no remittance for the period f...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is the Management of M/s.Sundaram Industries Ltd., running its Rubber Factory located at Kochadai, Madurai. They have filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal made in I.D.No.115 of 2000 dated 30.01.2010.2. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal dealt with the dismissal of the 16 workmen covered by the Government Order of reference in G.O.(D).No.271, Labour and Employment, dated 27.03.2002 which was raised by the second respondent Trade Union.3. The Industrial Tribunal, by its Award dated 30.01.2010 held that in respect of Sl.No.15, Velusamy as he had resigned and settled his account, he is not eligible to get any benefit. In so far as Sl.Nos.11 and 15 M/s.Ramasamy and Rajendaran were concerned, no relief was granted to them as they have also settled their accounts. In so far as Sl.No.13 Mahadevan, Sl.No.2 Mani and Sl.No.1 Thangasamy were concerned as they had reached the age of superannuation, tho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »