Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR503]; (2002)IIILLJ988Mad
ORDER1. Petition is filed to issue for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in C.P.No.5 of 1992 dated 23.2.1995 and quash the same.2. Respondents 2 to 6 herein filed a claim petition in C.P.No.5 of 1992 under sec. 33C(2) before the first respondent Labour Court on the basis that they were entitled to salary as per the recommendations of IV and V pay commission and claimed arrears on that basis. The petitioner herein contested the case on the ground that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act which is not a Government Department. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 6 were originally paid consolidated wages and after implementation of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, salary was paid to them. The Labour Court allowed the claim by its order dated 23.2.1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Mrs. T. Kokilavani appearing for the petitioner su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad376; [1964(9)FLR232]; (1963)IILLJ597Mad
Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The application was filed Under Section 75(2) of the Act by the Employees' State Issurance Corporation, to recover contribution due from the employer, namely, the Solar Works, the appellant in this appeal (respondent in the application before the Employees Insurance Court, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras). The application was filed for the recovery of contribution relating to the period between March 1957 to November 1958. It was filed on 21-6-1959. The Act does not prescribe any period of limitation within which such an application could be filed; but R. 17 of the rules framed by the Madras State Government prescribes a period of 12 months from the date, on which the cause of action arose or the claim became due. There is a proviso that the court may entertain an application after the said period of 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)IILLJ893Mad; (2008)3MLJ150
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the respondent dated 9.1.2006, which is a show cause notice for issuance of warrant of arrest, under Rule 73(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, read with Section 45-C to 45-I of the ESI Act, 1948.2. The issue relates to non-payment of ESI contribution for the period from 1.5.1994 to 31.3.2001. According to the petitioner, contributions were duly paid on 13.12.2006.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that before issuance of the show cause notice for arrest, an order under Section 45A of the ESI Act has been passed and that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, they will have to work out their remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act. Learned Counsel would however point out that the said order under Section 45A was passed as early as on 24.2.2003.4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, unless the petitioner challenges the said order of determination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR1131]; (2006)IILLJ208Mad; (2006)1MLJ452
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai (Division-I) on 22.11.93. While he was on duty on 11.9.2003 in the bus belonging to the Corporation with Regn. No. TN-58-N-0423 from Papanasam to Madurai, it met with an accident and rammed into a stationary lorry. The petitioner was seriously injured in the accident and both of his legs were crushed, resulting in amputation. He was sent for examination before a Medical Board on 30.12.2003, and the Medical Board certified as follows:Thiru P. Thangamarimuthu, Conductor, CR08603, Pudukulam Branch, TNSTC, Madurai appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2003 and was examined and found that he was previously admitted and treated at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and above knee Amputation for both lower limb done for the same. As per the work requirements described by the Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai Division, he is considered as medically unfit to the job of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)6MLJ798
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. All these writ petitions are filed for similar relief against the respondents, pleading identical grounds, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in WP No. 9426 of 2005 has prayed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notification published in the official gazzette of Tamil Nadu Government dated 01.08.2001 in connection with (Letter No. SE/GCC/CNI/Tech/CHD/F.T. & D 2001-22/D 635/2001 DT. 21.05.2001) proceedings No. VI-3(b)/21/2001 of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to cancel all approvals, sanctions and measures in connection with the scheme and not to lay over-head electricity lines above or across Plot No. R-21, Ambattur Phase I & II Scheme of TNHB in S.No. 49/part in Ayapakkam Village of Tiruvallur District.3. The petitioner in WP No. 11347 of 2007 has prayed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notification pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009LC(MAD)837; (2009)8MLJ1320
N. Kirubakaran, J.1. These writ appeals have been preferred against the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 15685, 20970, 14691 and 13951 of 2001 dated 28.9.2001, 25.9.2001, 25.9.2001 and 25.9.2001 respectively dismissing the aforesaid writ petitions confirming the proceedings of the third respondent in his proceedings permanent B.P.167 dated 11.10.2000 in respect of withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit by members of the Appellants-associations and quash the same.2. The case of the appellants herein after referred to as 'petitioners' before the learned Single Judge was that the withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit is un-constitutional and the amendment is arbitrary.3. The appellants herein are low tension and high tension electricity consumers and they were covered by the terms and conditions of supply of electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Before availing the supply, the petitioners have to pay initial current consumption deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC313
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of declaration to declare Note 3 of Division VII-C I relating to appointment of several classes, divisions and categories specified thereunder of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and the qualification for the respective posts framed under Regulation 92 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as ultra vires, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India andconsequently to hold the internal selection visualised under letter No. 00614/R/II/92-3 dated 29.12.1992 as illegal and void. 2. The brief facts of the case are: A substantial number of members of the petitioner-union are working as Helpers in the establishment of the respondent- Electricity Board, particularly as workers holding Industrial Training Institute Certificates (in short ITI Certificate) with technical qualification of National Trade Certificate and National Apprenticeship certificate (in brief NT & NA Certificate). The respondent Board was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ621Mad
Kanakaraj, J.1. The Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai :'Whether the demand of the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen represented by the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union, Madras, for treating the staff of such canteens which are run by the local implementation committees, as workmen of Indian Overseas Bank for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as are available to other class IV employees of the bank is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ?'This was taken on file as I.D. No. 72 of 1990. About one year later on December 17, 1991, the Government of India under the very same powers referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai:'Whether the demand of the Indian Over...
Tag this Judgment!