A.Azeema v. Corporation, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 20.2.The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Main Branch, Sri
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K CHANDRU
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence thepresent attempt to file such a writ petition is misconceived, bereft oflegal reasoning and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The contention raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was that they have engaged in a textile business and the first respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.42,622/- being omitted by them. It is stated by the…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.10.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P(MD)No.1688 of 2011andM.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011A.Azeema.. PetitionerVs.
The Recovery Officer, Sub Regional Office (Madurai), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 20.
The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Main Branch, Sri Nithyakalyani Towers, No.34, Krishnarayaor Tank Street, 2nd Floor, North Veli Street, Madurai – 1... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedingsNo.57/20474/11/ RRC/SRO/MDU/10 dated 02.02.2011 and quash the same as illegal and to pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal KhanFor Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam
O R D E RThe petitioner is an employer. In the present writ petition, she has challenged the distraint proceedings initiated by the first respondent, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. 2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 14.02.2011.Pending the notice of motion, interim stay was granted on the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the demand amount within a period of one week.
The learned counsel for the second respondent is not able to confirm that the order has been complied with or not.
Operative part
The contention raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was that they have engaged in a textile business and the first respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.42,622/- being omitted by them. It is stated by the petitioner that they have entrusted the case to their counsel Mr.M.Vaithiyalingam and due to non-representation, the cases were dismissed before the Labour Court, Madurai on25.03.2010. They have also filed applications in I.A.Nos.15, 16 and 17 of2011 before the Labour Court, Madurai and even before their applications could be taken up for condoning the delay in restoring the main original https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2petitions, the first respondent is executing their order and therefore the writ petition came to be filed and it is unfortunate that the petitioner having availed a statutory remedy under Section 75 of the Employees' StateInsurance Act, 1948 did not prosecute the same before the Employees' StateInsurance Court in E.I.O.P.Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 1998 and allowed to go for default and have also claimed to file their applications for restoration. If that be so, they should move the Labour Court for appropriate relief and not to come to this Court. This forum constituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used as a stop gap for getting interim orders, when their main remedy lies elsewhere. Even assuming that the Labour Court on merits rejected their case under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, a regular appeal lies to this Courtunder Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Hence the present attempt to file such a writ petition is misconceived, bereft of legal reasoning and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd-/- Assistant Registrar(Records) / True copy / Sub Assistant RegistrarsmnTo1.The Recovery Officer, Sub Regional Office (Madurai), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 20.2.The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Main Branch, Sri Nithyakalyani Towers, No.34, Krishnarayaor Tank Street, 2nd Floor, North Veli Street, Madurai – 1.1cc to Mr.K.C.Ramalingam, Advocate SR No.35800sb 03/11/2011 2p 4c W.P(MD)No.1688 of 2011andM.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2of 2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence thepresent attempt to file such a writ petition is misconceived, bereft oflegal reasoning and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.