Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
P. Poorasami – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-1 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed under article 226 are for seeking judicial review of termination orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners were appointed as casual labourers under the port trust's obligation to provide services. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioners claim of being denied rights to permanency unfairly. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. court considers maintainability and necessity of exhausting remedies under the industrial disputes act. (Para 11 , 15) |
| 5. court found termination arbitrary, confirming that petitioners entitled to permanent status. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. final order to confer permanent status and extend service benefits. (Para 20 , 21) |
COMMON ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the order dated 09.02.2006 passed by the second respondent. By the said order, the petitioners, who were working as casual labourers in the Chennai Port Trust, were terminated from canteen service.
2. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are common, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners were appointed as attenders in the Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd. (hereinafter referre
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
