Madras High Court
I.D.P.L. (Tn) Limited Employees ... vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 24 February, 2022
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
I.D.P.L. (TN) Limited Employees and Ex-Employees
Welfare Association (Regn.No.514/2022)
rep. by its Secretary,
1/6, Bharathi Nagar 2nd Street,
Porur, Chennai-600 116. .. Petitioner/
Appellant
Vs
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
IDPL Corporate Office Old Delhi,
Gurgaon - 122 016, Haryana.
2.The General Manager,
IDPL Tamilnadu Division,
Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600 089.
3.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Industrial Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
4.The Secretary to Government,
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
State of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
6.V.T.Kulothungan
7.G.Rathinam
8.S.Elumalai
9.R.Sigamani
10.S.Loganathan
11.M.Kaliyamurthy
12.K.Elamanda
13.M.Rajamanickam
14.Jayalakshmi Radhakrishnan
15.R.Ramaiyan
16.K.Nagarajan
17.A.Annadurai
18.P.Rajendran
19.K.Ekambaram
20.T.Dasarathan
21.K.P.Ramankutty
22.S.R.Viswanathan
23.P.Kannan
24.K.Chandran
25.T.Kalaimani
26.F.Jayadas Fernando
27.N.V.Purushothaman
28.M.S.Dhanasekaran
29.M.Ittikkan
30.M.Pandi
31.N.Krishnaswamy
32.R.K.Ramakrishnan
33.K.K.Gopi
34.J.Sebastian
35.A.Kandaswamy
36.M.Ramaswamy
____________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
37.K.N.Sampath
38.S.Thangavelu
39.R.William
40.N.Venkaiah
41.J.Murugesan
42.O.Sreedharan
43.P.P.Kunhunni
44.V.Gopinath Nair
45.G.Kuppan
46.S.Ramakrishnan
47.V.Leelammal
48.C.Pandurangan
49.B.Adikesavan
50.L.Gowri
51.Thangavali
52.Munusamy
53.Murugan
54.I.J.Joseph
55.Nayaz Hussain
56.T.G.Puttappan
57.M.Sundaranaryan
58.A.R.Ravichandran
59.D.R.Thimma Gowda
60.P.V.Koppan
61.M.Bhaskaran .. Respondents
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022 has been filed to grant leave to the
petitioner association to file writ appeal (W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022)
against the order passed in W.P.No.19920 of 2020, dated 07.04.2021.
Writ Appeal SR No.13608 of 2022 filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.19920 of 2020 on the file of
this Court.
____________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
For the Petitioner/ : Mr.G.Purusothaman
Appellant
For the Respondents/ : Mr.Haja Moideen Gisthi
Respondents for respondent No.1
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard on the application to grant leave for filing the writ appeal
against the order passed in W.P.No.19920 of 2020, dated 07.04.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
members of the applicant association were forcibly asked to vacate
the premises and pursuant to the direction, they were vacated. They
are not being given due benefit of leave encashment and other
benefits and, therefore, the application to seek leave has been filed.
3. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and find that no direction in regard to the non-payment of
benefits to the employees was given, if they have already vacated the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
premises. The applicant association failed to clarify as to which part of
the order/direction contained in paragraph 6 of the order of the
learned Single Judge is offending the applicant association because
the direction is largely in regard to those who failed to submit
affidavits and the aforesaid fact has been contained in paragraph 6
with appropriate directions. According to learned counsel for the
applicant, all the members of the applicant association have given
their affidavits and otherwise vacated the premises.
4. Taking the aforesaid into consideration that the directions
contained in paragraph 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge do
not find a case to grant leave in the absence of any part of the order
affecting the applicant association, the application to grant leave is
dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage.
No costs.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
24.02.2022 Index
: Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Industrial Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Transport Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
C.M.P.No.2791 of 2022
and W.A.No. SR 13608 of 2022
24.02.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
