Madras High CourtWP/16316/2005dismissed as infructuous

P. Yesaiah v. The Presiding Officer

2023-02-09Honourable Mr Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD and MP.Nos.17746 & 17747 of 2005

1. P. Yesaiah

2. A.Y.Savari Muthu

3. K.Govindarajan

4. D.Sampath

5. A. Thangamalai ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer Principal Labour Court High Court Compound Chennai 600 104.

2. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), (Certifying Officer under the I.E. (Sos) Act, 1946) Ministry of Labour, Government of India No.4, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.

3. The Management of Madras Fertilizers Ltd.,

4. The General Secretary Madras Fertilizers Staff Union 3, Dr.Vasudevan Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

5. The General Secretary Madras Fertilizers Ambedkar Employees Union, 57-E, Kamarajar Salai

6. The General Secretary Madras Fertilizers National Employees Union, (I.N.T.U.C.) 145/1, Thiruvottiyur High Road Chennai 600 081.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the files of the 1st respondent relating to its impugned order made in S.O.A.No.1 of 2002 dated 18.04.2005 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : M/s.M.G.Martin Manivannan For Respondents : M/s.V.Kalyana Raman for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R3 No appearance for R1, R2, R4 to R6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records from the files of the 1st respondent relating to its impugned order made in S.O.A.No.1 of 2002 dated 18.04.2005 and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted

that this writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai whereby reduced the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years in respect of public sector undertaking. Now seventeen years have gone and hence nothings survives in this writ petition for adjudication and this writ petition has become infructuous.

3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the third respondent this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 09.02.2023 dpq Index :

Yes/No Speaking Order :

Yes/No