Chennai:
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited has been
directed by High Court to pay Rs 25,000 as cost for granting adjournment in a case
pertaining to conferring of permanent status on workmen.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan after hearing a contempt petition by the
workmen has adjourned the hearing to July 11, 2014.
The contempt petition was filed after TANGEDCO has failed to implement
the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, under Tamil
Nadu Industrial establishments (conferment of permanent status) Act
1981 and subsequently Madras High Court order to TANGEDCO to comply
with the Inspector of Labour order.
The judge said that though the contempt petition has been entertained
on August 19, 2011, the superintending engineer woken up on a week’s
slumber and thought it fit to challenge the orders conferring
permanent status belatedly by filing writ petition, which was
subsequently dismissed.
The judge also stated that the review applicants who are arrayed as
contemnors in the contempt petitions are not interested in prosecuting
the proceedings but in seeking adjournment on one reason or other
which is found unreasonable.
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited has been
directed by High Court to pay Rs 25,000 as cost for granting adjournment in a case
pertaining to conferring of permanent status on workmen.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan after hearing a contempt petition by the
workmen has adjourned the hearing to July 11, 2014.
The contempt petition was filed after TANGEDCO has failed to implement
the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore, under Tamil
Nadu Industrial establishments (conferment of permanent status) Act
1981 and subsequently Madras High Court order to TANGEDCO to comply
with the Inspector of Labour order.
The judge said that though the contempt petition has been entertained
on August 19, 2011, the superintending engineer woken up on a week’s
slumber and thought it fit to challenge the orders conferring
permanent status belatedly by filing writ petition, which was
subsequently dismissed.
The judge also stated that the review applicants who are arrayed as
contemnors in the contempt petitions are not interested in prosecuting
the proceedings but in seeking adjournment on one reason or other
which is found unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment