Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of by recording the joint memo and with a condition that the sum of gratuity and the other amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of by recording the joint memo and with a condition that the sum of gratuity and the other amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web…
Judgment
W.P.No.16195 of 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.12.2024CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.16195 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2008DBS Bank India Limited, Rep. by its Senior Vice President - HR,Registered Office, at Express Towers,18th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021,Maharashtra State, India.. Petitioner(Petitioner cause title amended vide order, dated 25.01.2023 made in W.M.P.No.1806 of 2023 inW.P.No.16195 of 2008) Versus1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947), Salem.
D.Murugesan (deceased)
M.Kumararaja4. M.Latha5. M.Geetha6. M.Kavitha7. M.Balavaithilingam.. RespondentsRR-3 to 7 are substituted as LRs of deceased R2 -Murugesan, as per order, dated 23.08.2018 in 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16195 of 2008M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.16195 of 2008 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in TNSE Appeal No.1/2006 and quash its order, dated 31.03.2008.For Petitioner: Mr.N.Mohan NivasFor Respondents: Mr.K.Surenderan, Additional Government Pleader, for R1: R2 - Died: Mr.V.Govarthanan, for RR-3 to 7ORDERWhen the matter is taken up for hearing, a joint memo, signed by both the sides learned Counsel, is filed, in which, it is submitted that it is agreed that the petitioner management shall pay the respondents a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards gratuity, without interest and accumulated Provident Fund, with interest. 2. It is also agreed by the respondents that they will not have any other claim against the management except for the above amount. The legal heirs of the workman also agreed for the condition that the appeal in TNSE 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16195 of 2008 Appeal No.1 of 2006, filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, against the order, dated 31.03.2008, itself shall be treated as withdrawn. 3. Even though the memo is filed by both the sides learned Counsel, it is submitted that only after agreement by the parties, the joint memo is filed.
Operative part
In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of by recording the joint memo and with a condition that the sum of gratuity and the other amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order. It is made clear that the parties agreed for payment of gratuity, without interest and the accumulated Provident Fund, with interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.12.2024Neutral Citation: nogrsTo The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,(Appellate Authority under the Tamil3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16195 of 2008 Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947),Salem.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16195 of 2008D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grs W.P.No.16195 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 200809.12.2024 5/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of by recording the joint memo and with a condition that the sum of gratuity and the other amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 — s. 41.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.