SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE
The Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
R.Dorairaj – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)

RESERVED ON : 04.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P.No. 1065 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos. 1183, 23120 and 23482 of 2021 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ….Petitioner Vs.

R.Dorairaj, Assistant Engineer (Retired)

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Door No.15, Church Road, Bharathidasan Nagar, TTK Nagar Backside, Peerkanikaranai Chennai – 600045. …Respondent Prayer in WP To issue Writ of Certiorari or Order or Direction calling for the records relating to C.P.No.64 of 2017 dated 10.07.2020 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same and to order any other remedy as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Prayer in W.M.P. No. 1183 of 2021 To grant stay of further proceedings in C.P.No. 64/2017 dated 10.7.2020 on the file of the Principal labour court, Chennai-104 till the disposal of the above writ petition.

Prayer in W.M.P. No. 23120 of 2021 To vacate the stay granted by this Hon’ble Court in W.M.P.No.1183/2021 in W.P.No.1065/2021 on 20-01-2021 and dismiss the above writ petition filed by the petitioner with cost.

Prayer in WMP No. 23482 of 2021 To permit the petitioner / Respondent to withdraw Rs.3,89,652/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) deposited by the Respondent / Petitioner before the Honourable Principal Labour Court, Chennai on 02.03.2021 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Appearance of Parties:

For Respondent : Ms.Law Square, Advocate For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Advocate For Ms.Mekhala Advocate

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as “TWAD Board”). In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 64 of 2017, whereby the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.12,98,842/- as due and payable to the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum if paid within six months, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum.

3.When the matter was listed on 20.01.2021, while ordering notice to the respondent, this Court directed the petitioner–TWAD Board to deposit 30% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court within a period of eight weeks. Upon receipt of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed two miscellaneous petitions—one seeking vacating of the interim stay and the other seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited. However, no orders were passed on those applications. Meanwhile, when the matter was taken up on 05.12.2024, this Court directed that it be listed before the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. As no settlement was arrived at, the matter has now been posted for final hearing.

4.The records reveal that the respondent was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the TWAD Board. He was initially appointed as a Junior Draughting Officer Grade III and assumed charge on 24.02.1977. Subsequently, he was promoted and appointed as a Junior Engineer, taking charge in that post on 01.03.1980. He was placed under suspension with effect from 04.08.1994, pending disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service, and the Board, by its proceedings in B.P. Ms. No. 48 dated 07.02.2002, also resolved to initiate a civil suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,49,124/-, alleged to be the loss caused to the Board due to irregularities attributed to the respondent.

5.Aggrieved by his dismissal, the respondent filed W.P. No. 14155 of

2002 challenging the dismissal order. His writ petition was heard together with two other connected writ petitions filed by similarly placed employees, and a common judgment was delivered on 01.02.2013. By the said judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top