B. Periyasamy vs The Administrator, TNSTCE Pension Trust Fund, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - — 14/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(C)2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.
CLP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNSA020000232022
Next Hearing
22nd May 2026
Filing Number
23/2022
Filing Date
03-02-2022
Registration No
14/2022
Registration Date
03-02-2022
Court
Labour Court, Salem
Judge
3-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B. Periyasamy
Adv. T. Pichappa Advocate, Salem
Respondent(s)
The Administrator, TNSTCE Pension Trust Fund, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -
The Management, TNSTC (Salem) Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathi Puram, Dharmapuri -636705
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 03-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 23-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
The Labour Court, Salem recorded the cross-examination testimony of PW1 (witness) on 21.08.2025 in C.P. No. 14 of 2022, concerning pension and salary calculations of a former Checking Inspector who retired on 02.04.1986. The court found inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding pension calculations, dearness allowance percentages, and documentation submitted, with the witness unable to recall specific details about the claim amount and supporting bank statements. No further cross-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Labour Court, Salem recorded the cross-examination testimony of PW1 (witness) on 21.08.2025 in C.P. No. 14 of 2022, concerning pension and salary calculations of a former Checking Inspector who retired on 02.04.1986. The court found inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding pension calculations, dearness allowance percentages, and documentation submitted, with the witness unable to recall specific details about the claim amount and supporting bank statements. No further cross-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts