Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/50/2018ordered

C.Ragavendran, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2018-01-04Honourable Mr Justice R. Pongiappan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :22.10.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Rev.Aplw(MD) No.50 of 2018 in W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011 L.Veerappan ... Applicant/Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

2.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.

... Respondents/Respondents Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 & Section 114 of of CPC, against the common order, dated 14.03.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011 filed by the applicant and W.P.(MD)No.1865 of 2008 by the second respondent against the award, dated 26.02.2007 in I.D.No.286 of 1996 passed by the first respondent. Prayer in WP(MD). 10580/ 2011 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records from the first respondent Labour Court relating to the impugned award dated 26.02.2007 in I.D.No.286/96 of the 1st Respondent, quash the same in so far as denying back wages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner and consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate him in service with back wages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Arunachalam

ORDER

This review application is filed against the order, dated 14.03.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011. 2.The petitioner has come out with the present Review Petition to review the order, dated 14.03.2014, dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011 filed by him. According to the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

counsel for the Review Petitioner, due to dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the second respondent is not granting the attendant benefits. The Review Petitioner as well as the second respondent filed the writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.1865 of 2008 and W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011 challenging the same award dated 26.02.2007, made in I.D.No.286 of 1996. By the said award, the first respondent set aside the order of the dismissal by the second respondent and directed the second respondent to reinstate the Review Petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages. In the writ petition, the Review Petitioner has challenged among other things, the deniel of backwages and contended that the first respondent denied the other benefits and the Review Petitioner claimed that he is entitled to attendant and other consequential benefits.

3.This Court considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent, confirmed the award of the Labour Court and held that the Review petitioner is entitled to attendant benefits as Labour Court has ordered re-instatement with continuity of service. This Court dismissed both the writ petitions confirming the award of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement with continuity of service without backwages. The dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner will not be a reason for the second respondent to deny the attendant benefits. There is no error in the order, dated 14.03.2014 warranting reconsideration by this Court.

4.In the result, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) TO 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

2.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.

AM DS SKN SAR3 22 11 2018 2P 3C Rev.Aplw(MD) No.50 of 2018 in W.P(MD)No.10580 of 2011 22.10.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/