TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncashment of the surrender leave within the stipulated time. Although the petitioner has made a representation dated 25.11.2019, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation, enclosing a copy of this order, seeking for settlement of his surrendered leave salary and on receipt of the such representation, the respondents herein shall consider the same and disburse the eligible leave salary through four equated monthly installments in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment - Petition allowed. - W.P.(MD) No.26487 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2019 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For the Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman ORDER By consent of both parties, this writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division. The respondent filed W.P(MD).No.2449 of 2018 praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 21.12.2017 and direct the appellants to settle the petitioner's surrender leave salary. The appellant Corporation resisted the claim by contending that even though as per the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, the employee is entitled for surrendering and encashing 15 days in one year or 30 days in two years, the same has not been done by the writ petitioner during his service during 2011-2014 and after superannuation only in the year 2016, he has made a claim of surrender of earn leave, based on the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein similar relief sought for has been granted and the writ petitions were allowed and the appellants Transport Corporation was directed to implement the same. Thus in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly gone into the factual position and took note of stand of the appellants corporation as to why earlier they did not permit surrender and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, we find that the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.' 5. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to claim salary for the surrendered leave. 6. For all the forgoing reasons, although the petitioner has made a representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
