M.Barkath Ali v. The Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND W.M.P.No.9104 of 2017 M.Barkath Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

2.Management Axles India Limited ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the common Award of the first respondent dated 24.02.2016 in I.D.104 to 107 of 2011 in so far as I.D.No.107 of 2011 denying the relief of back wages, continuity of service for all purpose, allowances, all other attendant benefits and imposing condition to tender unconditional apology while being reinstated as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the second respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : R1 - Labour Court Mr.Anand Gopalan for R2 for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the common award of the first respondent dated 24.02.2016 in I.D.Nos.104 to 107 of 2011 in so far as I.D.No.107 of 2011 denying the relief of back wages, continuity of service for all purpose, allowances, all other attendant benefits and imposing condition to tender unconditional apology while being reinstated as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the second respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that during the pendancy of this writ petition, the entire emoluments pursuant to the award was settled in favour of the petitioner. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

2/4

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4.In view of the above, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous and the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

20.07.2023 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To 1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

3/4

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri 20.07.2023 4/4