R.Mahendran vs The Administrator, TNSTCE Pension Trust Fund, Pallavan Salai, Chennai — 26/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C(2). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.
CLP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNSA020000432022
Filing Number
43/2022
Filing Date
10-Mar-2022
Registration No
26/2022
Registration Date
10-Mar-2022
Court
Labour Court, Salem
Judge
3-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Last updated 19-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.R.Mahendran
Adv. T.Pichappa, Advocate, Salem.
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Administrator, TNSTCE Pension Trust Fund, Pallavan Salai, Chennai
-
2.The Management, TNSTC(Salem) Ltd., Dharmapur Region, Dharmapuri
Case History
-
22-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
11-Dec-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
06-Oct-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
The Labour Court, Salem hearing on 06.10.2025 in C.P.No.26 of 2022 examined testimony regarding a petitioner's 29 years of service and retirement dated 28.02.2017. The Court found that the administration's delay in issuing service certificates was an administrative error, and the cross-examination of witnesses is to be continued at the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Oct-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-Aug-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
07-Jul-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-May-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
03-Apr-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
17-Mar-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
07-Feb-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
23-Jan-2025
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
12-Dec-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Dec-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-Dec-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
24-Oct-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
07-Oct-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
02-Sep-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
12-Aug-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-Aug-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
11-Jul-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
13-Jun-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
09-May-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
21-Mar-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-Feb-2024
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
21-Dec-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
09-Nov-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
05-Oct-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
24-Aug-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
02-Aug-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
20-Jul-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
22-Jun-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
15-Jun-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
04-May-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
23-Mar-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
09-Mar-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
03-Mar-2023
Evidence
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
17-Feb-2023
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
20-Jan-2023
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
20-Jan-2023
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
30-Dec-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
02-Dec-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
04-Nov-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
30-Sep-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
02-Sep-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
22-Jul-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
24-Jun-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
20-May-2022
Counter
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
-
22-Apr-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 26/2022
The Labour Court, Salem hearing on 06.10.2025 in C.P.No.26 of 2022 examined testimony regarding a petitioner's 29 years of service and retirement dated 28.02.2017. The Court found that the administration's delay in issuing service certificates was an administrative error, and the cross-examination of witnesses is to be continued at the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts