RAMAMOORTHY N vs THE MANAGEMENT SECRETARY TIRUPATTUR SARVODAYA SANG NO 306 OLD NO 87 GANDHI ROAD TIRUPATHUR 635 601 Advocate - PANDIARAJAN M — 5/2023
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A2. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNVL020000092023
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
9/2023
Filing Date
07-02-2023
Registration No
5/2023
Registration Date
16-02-2023
Court
Principal Labour Court, Vellore
Judge
5-Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMAMOORTHY N
Adv. SURESH BABU A
Respondent(s)
THE MANAGEMENT SECRETARY TIRUPATTUR SARVODAYA SANG NO 306 OLD NO 87 GANDHI ROAD TIRUPATHUR 635 601 Advocate - PANDIARAJAN M
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court.
For further Proceedings
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-01-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Additional Labour Court, Vellore allowed the petition filed by N. Ramamoorthy under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court permitted the petitioner to file two letters dated 22.09.2020 and 26.09.2020 that were allegedly omitted by the respondent management, finding these documents may be essential to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The court rejected the respondent's objection that the documents could be manipulated, noting the petitioner was not introducing new documents but copies of letters already sent to management. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Labour Court, Vellore allowed the petition filed by N. Ramamoorthy under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court permitted the petitioner to file two letters dated 22.09.2020 and 26.09.2020 that were allegedly omitted by the respondent management, finding these documents may be essential to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The court rejected the respondent's objection that the documents could be manipulated, noting the petitioner was not introducing new documents but copies of letters already sent to management. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts