R. Sundararaj vs Pricol Limited Advocate - Praburam.V — 294/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(c)(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.
CP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNCB040003232022
Filing Number
323/2022
Filing Date
07-03-2022
Registration No
294/2022
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. Sundararaj
Adv. Kumarasamy.S
Respondent(s)
Pricol Limited Advocate - Praburam.V
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Disposed
Orders
Arguments
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Orders |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 23-02-2026 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 294/2022 R. Sundararaj v. Pricol Limited Decision: The Principal Labour Court dismissed the computation petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had claimed wage arrears of Rs.8,83,296/- for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019, contending the dismissal was illegal as it occurred during pending conciliation proceedings without requisite approval. However, during evidence, the petitioner admitted that through his union, he had entered into a settlement with the respondent and received all amounts due, with no further amount outstanding. The court accepted this settlement plea based on the memo (Ex.P1) filed and the petitioner's own testimony, finding valid and acceptable reasons to dismiss the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 294/2022 R. Sundararaj v. Pricol Limited Decision: The Principal Labour Court dismissed the computation petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had claimed wage arrears of Rs.8,83,296/- for 36 months following his dismissal on 11.02.2019, contending the dismissal was illegal as it occurred during pending conciliation proceedings without requisite approval. However, during evidence, the petitioner admitted that through his union, he had entered into a settlement with the respondent and received all amounts due, with no further amount outstanding. The court accepted this settlement plea based on the memo (Ex.P1) filed and the petitioner's own testimony, finding valid and acceptable reasons to dismiss the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts