w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sushil Joseph v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ACT INDIA LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = L99999TN1986PLC013555

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

    W.P. No. 14578 of 2009 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009

    Decided On, 06 September 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: G. Arumugaraja, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, N. Sakthivel, Additional Government Pleader, R2, S. Gunaseelan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 26.09.2008, passed in P.W.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent herein, and quash the operative portion of the impugned order in so far as it relates to or impose liability on the petitioner herein.)

1. The order dated 26.09.2008 passed in P.W.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was the Ex-Director of the 3rd respondent Company. The General Secretary of the Sangam /2nd respondent filed a petition under the Payment of Wages Act 1936, claiming wages for certain employees, who all are the members of the 2nd respondent Sangam. Though the Management filed a counter affidavit, they had not contested the case and subsequently, the petition was allowed and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour / 1st respondent passed an Award, granting wages to the members of the writ petitioner Sangam. Challenging the said award, the writ petitioner, who was the Ex-Director of the 3rd respondent company filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent Sangam made a submission that the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner of Labour and authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Against the order passed by the original authority, an appeal is contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 17(1) of the said Act, which reads as under:

“17. Appeal - (1) [An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-section (2) of section 15, or against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of that section] may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which [the order or direction] was made, in a Presidency-town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court.”

4. According to the above provision, the writ petitioner is bound to approach the Appellate authority for the purpose of the redressal of his grievances. Contrarily, the writ petition is filed, challenging the order of the original authority and under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that an adjudication by the Appellate authority in respect of disputed facts are required and this Court cannot entertain the writ petition in respect of the order passed by the Original authority, without exhausting the statutory Appellate remedy provided under the Act, which is also efficacious.

5. Exhausting the statutory remedies is of paramount importance. Writ petition can be entertained in a routine manner, in respect of the order passed by the original authority without approaching the Appellate authorities provided under the Act.

6. This being the consistent view taken by the Constitutional Courts across the Country. The Appellate remedy provided under the Act exhausted at the first instance and it is an admitted fact in the present case that the writ petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the original authority under the Act and an appeal is also contemplated under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The legal principles in respect of exhausting alternate statutory remedy was considered by this Court in the case of M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P.No.22508 of 2017 dated 16.07.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“19.Unnecessary or routine invasion into the statutory powers of the competent authorities under a statute should be restrained by the Constitutional Courts. Frequent or unnecessary invasions in the executive power will defeat the constitutional perspectives enshrined under the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution has been narrated and settled in umpteen number of judgments. Separation of powers demarcated in the Constitution of India is also to be considered, while exercising the powers of judicial review in the matter of dispensing with the appeal remedy provided for an aggrieved person under a statute. If the High Courts started interfering with such Appellate powers without any valid and substantiated reasons, then the very purpose and object of the statute and provision of appeal under the statute became an empty formality and the High Courts also should see that the provisions of appeal contemplated under the statutes are implemented in its real spirit and in accordance with the procedures contemplated under the rules constituted thereon. While entertaining a writ petition as narrated by the Apex Court, the provision of efficacious alternative remedy under the statute also to be considered. If the writ petitions are entertained in a routine manner, by not allowing the competent Appellate authority to exercise their powers under the provisions of the statute, then this Court is of an opinion that the power of judicial review has not exercised in a proper manner. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to elaborate the legal principle settled in respect of the separation of powers under the Constitution of India.

1. Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (UOI) (25.09.2014 - SC): MANU/SC/0875/2014If the historical background, the preamble, the entire scheme of the Constitution, relevant provisions thereof including Article 368 are kept in mind there can be no difficulty in discerning that the following can be regarded as the basic elements of the constitutional structure. (These cannot be catalogued but can only be illustrated):

(1) The supremacy of the Constitution.

(2) Republican and Democratic form of government and sovereignty of the country.

(3) Secular and federal character of the Constitution.

(4) Demarcation of power between the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

(5) The dignity of the individual secured by the various freedoms and basic rights in Part III and the mandate to build a welfare State contained in Part IV.

(6) The unity and the integrity of the Nation.2. Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr.[MANU/SC/0445/1973: (1973) 4 SCC 225].

That separation of powers between the legislature, theexecutiveand the judiciary is the basic structure of the Constitution is expressly stated by Sikri, C.J.

3. P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. [MANU/SC/0650/1996: (1996) 5 SCC 670] the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution of India recognised the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, namely, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The Court said:

It must be remembered that our Constitution recognises and incorporates the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Even though the Constitution has adopted the parliamentary form of government where the dividing line between the legislature and the executive becomes thin, the theory of separation of powers is still valid.

4. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (07.05.2014 - SC): MANU/SC/0425/2014

121. On deep reflection of the above discussion, in our opinion, the constitutional principles in the context of Indian Constitution relating to separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary may, in brief, be summarized thus:

(i) Even without express provision of the separation of powers,the doctrine of separation of powers is an entrenched principle in the Constitution of India.

The doctrine of separation of powers informs the Indian constitutional structure and it is an essential constituent of rule of law.

In other words, the doctrine of separation of power though not expressly engrafted in the Constitution, its sweep, operation and visibility are apparent from the scheme of Indian Constitution. Constitution has made demarcation, without drawing formal lines between the three organs- legislature, executive and judiciary. In that sense, even in the absence of express provision for separation of power, the separation of power between legislature, executive and judiciary is not different from the constitutions of the countries which contain express provision for separation of powers.

(ii) Independence of courts from the executive and legislature is fundamental to the rule of law and one of the basic tenets of Indian Constitution.

Separation of judicial power is a significant constitutional principle under the Constitution of India.

(iii) Separation of powers between three organs--legislature, executive and judiciary--is also nothing but a consequence of principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, breach of separation of judicial power may amount to negation of equality Under Article 14. Stated thus, a legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of the separation of powers since such breach is negation of equality Under Article 14 of the Constitution.

(iv) The superior judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court) is empowered by the Constitution to declare a law made by the legislature (Parliament and State legislatures) void if it is found to have transgressed the constitutional limitations or if it infringed the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

(v) The doctrine of separation of powers applies to the final judgments of the courts. Legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however, pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by a court of law or on coming to know of it aligned.

In other words, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances.

(vi) If the legislature has the power over the subject-matter and competence to make a validating law, it can at any time make such a validating law and make it retrospective. The validity of a validating law, therefore, depends upon whether the legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the subject-matter and whether in making the validation law it removes the defect which the courts had found in the existing law.”

20. This Court is of a strong opinion that institutional respects are to be maintained by the constitutional Courts. Whenever there is a provision for an appeal under the statute, without exhausting the remedies available under the statute, no writ petition can be entertained in a routine manner. Only on exceptional circumstances, the remedy of appeal can be waived, if there is a gross injustice or if there is a violation of fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. Otherwise, all the aggrieved persons from and out of the order passed by the original authority is bound to approach the Appellate Authority. The Constitutional Courts cannot make an appeal provision as an empty formality. Every Appellate Authority created under the statute to be trusted in normal circumstances unless there is a specific allegation, which is substantiated in a writ proceedings. Thus, the institutional functions and exhausting the appeal remedies by the aggrieved persons, are to be enforced in all circumstances and writ proceedings can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances. Rule is to prefer an appeal and entertaining a writ is only an exception. This being the legal principles to be followed, this Court cannot entertain the writ petitions in a routine manner by waiving the remedy of appeal provided under the statute.

21. Now, let us look into the legal principles settled by the Apex Court for exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy provided under the statute.

22. When an effective alternative remedy is available, a writ petition cannot be maintained

1. In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. DosuAardeshirBhiwandiwala and Ors. MANU/SC/8250/2008: (2009) 1 SCC 168, this Court had observed that:

The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

(b) the petition reveals all material facts;

(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.

2. KanaiyalalLalchand Sachdev and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (07.02.2011 - SC): MANU/SC/0103/2011

It is well settled that ordinarily relief Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories.)

3. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. ChhabilDass Agarwal, MANU/SC/0802/2013: 2014 (1) SCC 603, as follows:

Para 15. while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the Rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in ThansinghNathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

4. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. vs. Mathew K.C. (30.01.2018 - SC): MANU/SC/0054/2018

The petitioner argued that the SARFAESI Actis a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved underSection 17before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal underSection 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply. Reliance was placed onUnited Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, andGeneral Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court agreed to the arguments and held the same also noted that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.

5. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.reported at AIR 2005 SC 3856, the Supreme Court explained the rule of 'alternate remedy' in the following terms

Considering the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for aperiod when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976,the power relatingto alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule ofpolicy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it iswithin the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Atthe same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing todo with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequateefficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternativeremedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist goodgrounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.6. K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission andOrs., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 425; Union ofIndia v. T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86 andM/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089,

Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court held that Article 226 of theConstitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However,theremedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the High Court has always the discretion to refuse togrant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. TheCourt, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there hasbeen a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 7. First Income-TaxOfficer, Salem v. M/s. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., [1966] 3 SCR 84andState of U.P. and Ors. v. M/s. IndianHume Pipe Co. Ltd., [1977] 2 SCC 724. There are two wellrecognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings aretaken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby tomove the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a partybeing obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no applicationwhen the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertaina writ petition.” 7. In view of the legal principles settled, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to approach the Appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. In view of the fact that the writ petition is kept pending for long years and in the event of filing any appeal by the writ petitioner, the Appellate authority shall consider the condone delay petition and entertain the appeal and adjudicate the matter on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal, if they have chosen to do so. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
21-09-2020 Krishna Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise Act, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Sumitra Devi Versus Special Judge / Addl Distt & Sess. Judge E.C Act Hardoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Jaya Sakthi Leathers (P) Ltd., a Company constituted under Companies Act, Rep. by its Managing Director, M.P. Adimoolam Versus The Finance Secretary, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 Seema Garg & Others Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Govt. of India, Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 M/s. Jackson Laboratories Private Limited, A Private Limited Company Registered under The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Represented by its Managing Director, Jugal Kishore, Amritsar V/S Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare (H2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 KIRITHAVAR VAZHVURIMAI IYAKKAM, A Society registered under The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 @ PASTORAL CENTRE, Tamil Nadu and represented by its President, Prof. Dr. Deva Sahayam Versus Indhiya Jananayaka Katchi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Balkis Natciar & Others V/S Arulmigu Adheeswarar Thirukoil represented by the Trustees appointed by the Government under the provisions of the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
14-02-2020 B.V. Viswanathan & Another Versus Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages) (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of devolution issues to the Supreme Court pursuant to Paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Northern Ireland) United Kingdom Supreme Court
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd. (Previously SSL-TTK Limited) A Company existing under the Companies Act, 2013, Represented by its Authorized signatory M. Ponraj, Kancheepuram Versus Union of India through the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 TVL. National Power Press, Rep. by its Partner, R. Raguraman, Thanjavur Versus The Special Committee U/s 16 D of the TNGST Act, 1959, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 M/s. Fibroplast Marine Private Limited, A duly incorporated Company under the Companies Act, 1956, Registered office at Goa, Represented by its Director & Authorized Signatory Raghav Narula Versus M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited, A duly incorporated Company under the Companies Act, 1956, Registered office at Guindy, Represented by its Authorized Representative High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 The Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Vellore Versus The Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-11-2019 K.M. Chinnasamy & Others Versus The Inspector of Labour, Appointed under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Represented by its General Manager Versus The Appellate Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Versus The Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act (The Assistant Commissioner of Labour) Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 SU Toll Road Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Versus The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2019 The Management, Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Rep., by its Vice President – Human Resources, Chennai & Another Versus Appellate Authority under Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act-1947, Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 The Managing Director (Previously The Special Officer), Vellore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vellore Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour/Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 The Managing Director (Previously The Special Officer), Vellore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vellore Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour/Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 The Superintending Engineer, Namakka Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Namakkal Versus The Inspector of Labour, Office of the Inspector of Labour, Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment, (Conferment to permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981, Namakkal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 Coimbatore South Sarvodaya Sangam, Represented by its Secretary P. Velusamy, Erode Versus Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 Vitalo Plastics Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Minimum Wages), (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-10-2019 Bombay Salesian Society, a Society registered under Societies Registration Act; and a public trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-10-2019 M/s. VGN Developers P Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, D. Pratish, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Sh. Pushpender Singh Chawla Versus Commissioner Employees Compensation Act & Another High Court of Delhi
01-10-2019 The Deputy General Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hosur Versus Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Bibin Thomas Versus Firm P.J. Homes – a Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its registered office at Thiruvananthapuram – Rep by its Managing Partner –P.J. John & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
27-09-2019 The Management of Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Chennai Versus Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Controlling Authority for the Payment of Gratuity Act), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
18-09-2019 K-113, Kugalur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Erode District Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour [Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act], Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 Central bank of India, A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act IV of 1970 & having its Head office at Chandarmukhi, Mumbai & a branch inter alia at Coonoor, Rep. by its Senior Manager Versus Shanthi Rajkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Initiating Officer, Acit Benami Prohibition Versus Appellate Tribunal Under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 & Others High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 Kaleeswarar Mills 'A' Unit, Rep by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Appellate Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 The Management, Kelamangalam Agricultural Producers, Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Krishnagiri Versus The Appellate authority/Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 M/s. V.R. Muthu & Brothers, Represented by its Partner, R. Muthu Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act), Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-08-2019 G.S. Gopakumar Versus Ansal Buildwell Ltd., A Public Limited Company registered under The Companies Act, having its registered office at New Delhi & branch office at Ansals Riverdale, Ernakulam, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-08-2019 Maximus ARC Limited, a Company Incorporated under Companies Act, 2013, Vijayawada, Rep. by Assistant Vice President, K. Hari Krishna Versus Anna University, Chennai, Rep. by its Vice Chancelor, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-08-2019 Indowind Energy Limited, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Chennai Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
18-07-2019 Agaram Washermen Association registered under the Societies Registration Act vide Regn. No.1605/M, Rep by its President Versus V. Karunakaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras