Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
M.Arulprakasam – Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and identification of parties (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' claims and arguments (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on evidences presented (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. nature of employment and contractors (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 5. application of labor laws and court's reasoning (Para 18 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. determination of workmen's claims (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final determination of status under statutes (Para 32 , 34 , 36) |
| 8. conclusion and directive for payment (Para 38 , 39) |
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitions, in W.P.(MD)Nos.10133 to 10137, 10139 to 10161, 10163 to 10170, 14234 to 14246, 14248, 14249, 14252 to 14270 of 2013, have been filed by the Contractors, whereas, the writ petition, in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014, has been filed by the labours/workmen challenging the impugned Award dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Labour Court.
2. Though very many writ petitions were filed, this Court is inclined to refer the status of the parties as mentioned in the W.P.(MD).No.2245 of 2014, which was filed by labours/workmen against the Management and Contractors. For the sake of brevity, convenience and better understanding, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.2245 of 2014 shall be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
