M. Manikandan vs Pricol Limited — 118/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(c)(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.
CP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNCB040001002022
Filing Number
100/2022
Filing Date
07-03-2022
Registration No
118/2022
Registration Date
18-05-2022
Court
Labour Court, Coimbatore
Judge
5-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M. Manikandan
Adv. Kumarasamy.S
Respondent(s)
Pricol Limited
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Disposed
Orders
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Orders |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: M. Manikandan v. Pricol Limited (118/2022) The Principal Labour Court dismissed M. Manikandan's computation petition seeking Rs. 8,91,504 in wage arrears for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019. Although the petitioner argued the dismissal was illegal as it occurred during pending conciliation proceedings without mandatory prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court rejected the petition after the petitioner admitted during evidence that he had entered into a settlement with the respondent through his union and received all amounts due. The court found valid and acceptable reasons to dismiss the petition based on the petitioner's own testimony and the settlement memo filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: M. Manikandan v. Pricol Limited (118/2022) The Principal Labour Court dismissed M. Manikandan's computation petition seeking Rs. 8,91,504 in wage arrears for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019. Although the petitioner argued the dismissal was illegal as it occurred during pending conciliation proceedings without mandatory prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court rejected the petition after the petitioner admitted during evidence that he had entered into a settlement with the respondent through his union and received all amounts due. The court found valid and acceptable reasons to dismiss the petition based on the petitioner's own testimony and the settlement memo filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts