logo
#

Latest news with #K.Surender

Election Commission opposes AIADMK's plea for time limit to decide on representations
Election Commission opposes AIADMK's plea for time limit to decide on representations

The Hindu

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • The Hindu

Election Commission opposes AIADMK's plea for time limit to decide on representations

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday filed a written response before the High Court, opposing the AIADMK's plea to fix a time limit for the ECI to take a decision on its jurisdiction to entertain representations by several expelled party members seeking different reliefs, including freezing of the 'two leaves' election symbol. In a counter affidavit filed before the second Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and K. Surender, Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Archana Patnaik said, 'an order requiring specific timelines is not necessary', since the ECI was a constitutional body whose workload due to the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections and other activities need to be factored in. Filing the counter on behalf of the ECI, the CEO assured the Bench that the proceedings in the AIADMK issue would, however, be dealt with in an 'expeditious manner', and in accordance with the order passed by the High Court on February 12, 2025. Earlier, senior counsel Vijay Narayan, assisted by K. Gowtham Kumar, had contended that the ECI could not sit over the matter for months. Responding to it, Ms. Patnaik said, initially, an individual named S. Surya Moorthi and a couple of others had made a representation to the ECI on February 12, 2024 for freezing the 'two leaves' symbol. Hence, the Commission in December 2024 told the court that it would take a decision on his representation within four weeks. In the interregnum, six more individuals aproached the ECI. The CEO said the representations were from P. Ravindranath (former MP and son of former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam), Va. Pugazhendi, M.G. Ramachandiran, P. Gandhi, B. Ramkumar Adityan, and K.C. Palanisamy. The individuals were given a personal hearing on December 23 and 24, 2024, after which, the parties began filing further representations, replies, and rejoinders. Eventually, the number of parties increased to 10, and all of them were given a personal hearing on April 28, 2025. Mr. Pugazhendi, Mr. Ravindranath and Mr. Paneerselvam submitted written representations as late as April 29, 2025; May 7, 2025, and July 3, 2025, respectively, the CEO added. Stating the individuals had relied upon multiple judicial pronouncements, the CEO said, the commission would require time to consider those materials in detail. She said, the commission was now conducting preliminary hearings to find out whether there were rival factions in the AIADMK requiring ECI's interference under paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. 'Once the preliminary hearing is completed, the matter will be dealt with based on the findings therefrom. I respectfully submit that the first respondent (ECI) is sensitive to the matter and its role as a constitutional body,' the counter affidavit filed by the CEO, through ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan, read.

Madras High Court stays order directing Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission to reinstate former employee
Madras High Court stays order directing Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission to reinstate former employee

The Hindu

time15-07-2025

  • Politics
  • The Hindu

Madras High Court stays order directing Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission to reinstate former employee

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by a single judge directing the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai, to reinstate a former employee with back wages. The Bench has also decided to examine in detail as to whether diplomatic missions would fall under the definition of the term 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The Bench comprising Justices R. Subramanian and K. Surender granted the interim stay after the Deputy High Commission preferred a writ appeal, through its counsel G. Kalyan Jhabak, and contended that the single judge had overlooked the proposition that an Embassy or High Commission could not be termed as an 'industry' as it had been defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The orders had been passed on a writ petition filed by T. Senthilkumari, who had served as Consular Assistant at the Deputy High Commission of Sri Lanka in Chennai between 2008 and 2018. The Deputy High Court Commission also argued that there was no master-servant relationship between it and the writ petitioner who had sought reinstatement in service and hence the question of reinstatement would not arise at all. Claiming that the petitioner was not terminated at all, the appellant stated that she had worked only in a temporary post and her contractual service had come to an end on December 31, 2018. On the other hand, the single judge, in his February 12 order, had held that foreign diplomatic missions in India could not claim any exemption from following the labour and social security laws of the country, at least with respect to Indians employed in their High Commissions and Consulates here. He stated that the Parliament had enacted the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, to give a force of law to a convention adopted by India at the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities held in Vienna on April 14, 1961. Article 33 of the Convention clearly states that only foreign nationals serving in a diplomatic mission would be exempt from the social security laws of the receiving State. 'Therefore, the exemption provided for in the Article is not applicable to the nationals of the receiving State... In respect of such employees to whom the exemption provided in the Article does not apply, the diplomatic agents shall observe obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers. In such view of the matter, no immunity can be claimed by the management,' the judge had said. He had further held that Indians serving in foreign diplomatic missions here need not obtain the Centre's permission, under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before approaching an industrial tribunal against their employers. Relying upon a 1963 Supreme Court verdict, he had said, industrial tribunals could not be deemed to be a court for the purpose of obtaining the Centre's express permission before suing a diplomatic mission.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store