N.Sivananth Kumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN N.Sivananth Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, The State of Tamil Nadu, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, The State of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, The Managing Director, The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, "Pallavan House", P.B.No.390, Anna Salai,

Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resources Development), Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, "Pallavan House", Anna Salai, ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for an issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 17.01.2025 bearing letter no.640/LS(CM-V)/MTC/2020 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 4th respondent to pay the balance salary of Rs.53,527/- for the months of May to Aug, 2020 to the petitioner herein within a reasonable time.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Kathikeyan For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Balaji Standing Counsel for R4

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 5th

respondent dated 17.01.2025 and quash the same. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed a writ petition to consider his representation for payment of salary of Rs.53,527/- for the period from May to August 2020. Based on the order passed in W.P.No.13615 of 2020 dated 10.09.2024, the respondents passed an order on 17.01.2025, rejecting the petitioner's request, which according to the petitioner is in contravention to the factual position. Hence the petition. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel would jointly submit that if at all the petitioner has got any remedy, it is only before the Labour Court by filing a computation petition and would further dispute the entitlement of the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.

It is well settled principle of law that whenever disputed facts exists, it is not appropriate to adjudicate the same before the writ court. It is

further relevant to record that if the petitioner is entitled for any amount, he has to prove the same before the Labour Court by filing a computation petition.

In such view of the matter, this Court do not find any merits in the instant writ petition and stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Labour Court for filing a computation petition in accordance with law. No costs.

07.07.2025 veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To 1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, The State of Tamil Nadu, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

veda The State of Tamil Nadu,

Transport Department, The Managing Director, The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, "Pallavan House", P.B.No.390, Anna Salai, Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resources Development), Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, "Pallavan House", Anna Salai, 07.07.2025