R. Saroja and 2 others vs The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., — 76/2019
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C(2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.
CLP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNSA020002892019
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
278/2019
Filing Date
21-11-2019
Registration No
76/2019
Registration Date
21-11-2019
Court
Labour Court, Salem
Judge
3-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R. Saroja and 2 others
Adv. PON RAMANI P
R. Ramasamy
Adv. PON RAMANI P
S. Kavitha
Adv. PON RAMANI P
Respondent(s)
The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd.,
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 27-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
The Labour Court, Salem recorded the deposition of Respondent Worker 1 (RW1) on 08.08.2022 in Case No. 76/2019, examining issues related to provident fund contributions, retirement benefits, and gratuity entitlements for an employee named Rajju. The court's cross-examination and subsequent analysis found that the management failed to provide adequate documentation for several critical calculations, including salary records from 1999-2000, bonus percentages, leave encashment details, and family support fund disbursement following the employee's death on 15.05.2010. The court concluded that the management must calculate and pay the petitioner the maximum entitled amount along with interest, as the claims made by the management lacked proper documentary support and accurate accounting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Labour Court, Salem recorded the deposition of Respondent Worker 1 (RW1) on 08.08.2022 in Case No. 76/2019, examining issues related to provident fund contributions, retirement benefits, and gratuity entitlements for an employee named Rajju. The court's cross-examination and subsequent analysis found that the management failed to provide adequate documentation for several critical calculations, including salary records from 1999-2000, bonus percentages, leave encashment details, and family support fund disbursement following the employee's death on 15.05.2010. The court concluded that the management must calculate and pay the petitioner the maximum entitled amount along with interest, as the claims made by the management lacked proper documentary support and accurate accounting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts