R. Glitas vs Pricol Limited Advocate - Shanmugavadivel.A — 98/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(c)(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.
CP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNCB040001062022
Filing Number
106/2022
Filing Date
07-03-2022
Registration No
98/2022
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)
R. Glitas
Adv. Kumarasamy.S
Respondent(s)
Pricol Limited Advocate - Shanmugavadivel.A
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Disposed
Orders
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R. Glitus v. Pricol Limited (98/2022) The Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore dismissed the workman's computation petition seeking Rs. 9,57,060 in wage arrears for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019. Although the petitioner argued the dismissal was void because it violated Section 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (being effected during pending conciliation proceedings), the court found the petition unmaintainable because the petitioner himself admitted during evidence that he had entered into a settlement with management through his union and received all amounts due to him, with no further compensation pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R. Glitus v. Pricol Limited (98/2022) The Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore dismissed the workman's computation petition seeking Rs. 9,57,060 in wage arrears for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019. Although the petitioner argued the dismissal was void because it violated Section 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (being effected during pending conciliation proceedings), the court found the petition unmaintainable because the petitioner himself admitted during evidence that he had entered into a settlement with management through his union and received all amounts due to him, with no further compensation pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts