M.Mandaiveeran v. Complex
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The President, Kottakudi Panchayat, Kottakudi, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing all the respondents to implement the orders, dated 11.09.2007 in I.D. PetitionNo.130 of…
Judgment
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.10.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.(MD)No.336 of 2011M.Mandaiveeran .. Petitioner Vs.
The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.
The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020.
The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Melur Panchayat Union, Melur Taluk, Maduai District.
The President, Kottakudi Panchayat, Kottakudi, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing all the respondents to implement the orders, dated 11.09.2007 in I.D. PetitionNo.130 of 2002 and the orders dated 29.09.2009 in claim Petition No.84 of2009 of the Labour Court, Madurai, within a specified time frame that maybe fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Balasubramanian for Mr.S.VisvalingamFor Respondents :Mr.TS.MD.Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDERThe petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the respondents to implement the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai inI.D.No.130 of 2002. By the afore-said award the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. Since the award was not complied with, the petitioner moved the LabourCourt with an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act).
The above said petition was taken on file in Claim Petition No.84 of 2009. The Labour Court by exparteproceedings granted a sum of Rs.43,079/- to the petitioner, who was employed as Sanitary Worker in the fourth respondent, Kottakudi Panchayat, Melur Taluk. 2. Instead of making appropriate application before the same LabourCourt under Section 11-B of the Act for executing its own award, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector, during the grievance day. Pursuant to the said representation, it is seen that the Block Development Officer, Melur had written a letter to the fourth respondent to comply with the order and with this litigation, the petitioner seeks for further direction from this Court.3. Such a course of action on the part of the petitioner is unnecessary, especially when the Labour Court has specifically empowered to execute its own order or award by introduction of Section 11-B of the Act.
Operative part
The said provision is held to be constitutionally valid by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (4) CTC 118 (S.Gunasekaran V. The Government of Tamil Nadu). Hence, the petitioner is directed to approach the Labour Courtfor appropriate relief. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (T & P)/True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.2.The Assistant Director of Panchyats, Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020.3.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Melur Panchayat Union, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 4. The President, Kottakudi Panchayat, Kottakudi, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.+1. CC to Mr.S.Visvalingam, Advocate, SR.No. 36120+1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 35849jikrOrder made inW.P.(MD)No.336 of 201114.10.2011TR :31.10.2011: 2p/7c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, 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.