பிச்சப்பா Salem Advt: I have gone through the contents of the WP 7052/20. In the case of A.Senthamarai Kannan v. The

[05/05, 22:26] பிச்சப்பா Salem Advt: I have gone through the contents of the WP 7052/20. In the case of A.Senthamarai Kannan v. The management tmstc Salem.. Of my opinion I would like to say that the Council of the petitioner has a chosen a wrong legal proceedings. The petitioner was dispensed on 27.3. 2015. At the time of his dismissal a common dispute was pending. The Wage settlement for the period from 1.9.2013 to 31/8/2016 was pending. It was concluded on 13/4 2015. From this it is known that the dismissal was order on 27/3 2015 that time a common dispute was pending. According to Section 33(2)b I. D. Act, the management is on the obligation of getting approval for its dismissal order. It is not known whether the management has applied form T, before the authority seeking approval for its. order. Jaipur Jila Vikas case, The Honorable Supreme Court concluded that if approval is not applied or approval is denied both are same. If approval is not obtained or applied, dismissal order is invalid and the aggrieved employee is Deemed to be in service.
If it is placed before the Honorable Court, there is a chance to the petitioner to win the case… Pichappa
[06/05, 07:59] sekarreporter1: 👍