The Management v. P.Kalyani
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI Lok Adalat-II organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Monday, the 12th day of March, 2018 LOK ADALAT ORDER (Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) Presided over by The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN (Retd.) and Members Mr.P.Perumalappan, District Judge, (Retired) Mr.T.Charles W.P.No.9993 of 2017 & W.MP.No.10996 of 2017 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to the passing of the order in order in TNSE No.7/2013 dated 25.04.2016 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem and quesh the same in the interest of justice.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.P.Kalyani 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops Establishment Act) Salem.
.. Respondents This case came up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned Government Pleader for the petitioner, Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, the learned counsel for 1st respondent, Mr.J.Muthukumaran are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the Management, represented by its President, DD103, Dharmapuri District Treasury Department Employees Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society, Dharmapuri 636 701 filed the present writ petition No.9993 of 2017 against the first respondent against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the second respondent herein dated 25.04.2016 in TNSE No.7/2013.
2. It is stated that the first respondent herein filed a petition before the second respondent challenging the dismissal order passed by the petitioner herein. The learned second respondent after hearing both side and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the dismissal order passed by the petitioner herein dated 14.12.2009 is illegal and not sustainable according to law. Therefore, the learned second respondent passed an order in favour of the first respondent conforming the continuity of service of the petitioner as well as directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent. As against the said order the petitioner herein filed the present petition.
3. When this petition is taken up for hearing today. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent appeared before this forum and stated that the Management now considers the request of the first respondent as well as considering the economic status of the first respondent decided to reinstate the 1st respondent in service. Further the counsel would states that taking into consideration of the observations referred by the second respondent in his order as well as the other convincing reason stated by the first respondent, the Management has come forward to reinstate the first respondent in service. Accordingly, the Management is going to be appointed 1st respondent as secretary in the said society on 15.03.2018. Further the counsel also states that as far as the service is concerned her absence from attending the work in particular period is condoned and the said period is now treated as a continuation of the service in the society.
4. On the side of the Management the President of the said Society Thiru S.Singaravel, appeared before this forum and endorsed the statement made by the counsel for the first respondent. Further the counsel for the first respondent as well as the representative of the Management have stated that this decision is taken on the basis of a compromise formula agreed by the Management as well as the first respondent. Since both the parties decided to compromise the matter in a fruitful way therefore they have come to the conclusion of deciding the disposal of this writ petition on the basis of
compromise formula entered by both parties.
5. Taking into consideration of the reasons stated by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as the compromise entered by both the parties, this Court is of the view that this is a fittest case for effecting the compromise formula between the parties. Therefore, the said case is disposed of on the basis of compromise entered by both the parties. Since the Management undertakes to appoint the first respondent as secretary from 15.03.2018, her service can be continued as per the terms and conditions accepted by both the parties. Since the Management agreed to appoint the first respondent as secretary as per the terms and conditions of the compromise formula. The management is directed to appoint the first respondent as secretary without any delay. With the above said terms and conditions this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Award is passed accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/- Counsel for the Petitioner Sd/- Sd/- P.Kalyani Counsel for the 1st Respondent This Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.
The full Court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.
Sd/- Sd/- Judge Sd/- Member Member Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar av
To The parties/Advocate concerned Copy to:
1.
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops Establishment Act) Salem.
2.
The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 3.
The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
4.
The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.
5.
W.P.No.9993 of 2017 & W.MP.No.10996 of 2017 CA(co) CS/03/12/2018