Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Presiding Officer on 9 August, 2021
W.A.No.834 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A. No.834 of 2014
1. Jaganathan
2. R.Palani
3. K.Saminathan
4. A.S.Natarajan
5. K.Boopathy
6. S.Antonysamy
7. V.Sundararaj
8. K.Kandasamy
9. N.Mahendran
10. P.Paulmani
11. C.V.Subramanian
12. C.Balakrishnan
13. N.Velusamy
14. N.Deivamani
15. S.Jamesha
16. M.Ganesamoorthy
17. R.Viswanathan
18. M.Dhanalakshmi
19. M.Paulmanickam
20. N.Sampathkumar
21. S.Amanullah
22. N.Nandagopal
23. P.Shanmugham
24. N.Anandkumar
25. P.Chinnakaruppan
26. P.K.Natarajan
27. A.Selladurai
28. P.C.Murugananthan
29. A.Ayyappan
30. U.Ayer
31. R.P.Ramasamy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.834 of 2014
32. M.Arumugam
33. S.Sivakumar
34. P.Shanmugam
35. A.Rasu
36. K.Arumugam
37. K.S.Vijayamani
38. V.Vimaldoss ... Appellants
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Managing Director,
Revathi Equipment Ltd.,
Pollachi Road,
Malumichampatti – 641 021,
Coimbatore District.
John raj (Died)
M.Manickavasagam (Died) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order in W.P. No.15028 of 2007 passed by this Court dated
15.04.2013.
For Appellants : Ms.Suseela Devi
For Respondents : Mr.Karthik Seshadri for
M/s. Iyer & Thomas for R2
R1 Court
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order
dated 15.04.2013 passed in W.P. No.15028 of 2007 wherein the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.834 of 2014
learned Single Judge, deploring about the delay in approaching the
Labour Court for raising the industrial dispute, after 29 long years from
the date of dismissal i.e. on 12.06.1975, dismissed the writ petition
confirming the Award passed by the Labour Court.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
when 52 workmen including the appellants, employed in R.M.T. Drills
Private Limited, were dismissed from service on 12.06.1975, they
were not keeping idle, but raised Industrial Disputes before the Labour
Court and their genuine claim for re-instatement has not been
considered. Therefore, they have come to this Court with the above
writ petition. But the learned Single Judge, without considering their
grievances, dismissed the above writ petition on the ground that the
appellants are guilty of laches in approaching the Labour court for
redressal. Therefore, the method adopted by the learned Single Judge
is liable to be interfered with. Adding further, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that some of the workmen died during the
pendency of this matter, therefore, this Court may show some leniency
and mercy upon the appellants for getting some relief from the second
respondent Management.
3.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.834 of 2014
4.But we are unable to find any justification or merit therein. The
reason being that when all the workmen were denied employment by
the erstwhile R.M.T. Drills Private Limited on 12.06.1975, they
knocked at the doors of the second respondent to re-instate them in
service with continuity of service, back wages and other benefits.
Therefore, the second respondent filed W.P. No.4773 of 1982 stating
that they were not successor of R.M.T. Drills Private Limited.
Thereafter, the appellants have approached the Labour Court. As
against the dismissal of the Industrial Disputes filed before the Labour
Court, they have come to this Court. However, the learned Single
Judge came to the conclusion that appellants cannot raise industrial
dispute after 29 long years from the date of dismissal took place on
12.06.1975.
5.Regrettably it may be mentioned that when they were denied
employment on 12.06.1975 by R.M.T. Drills Private Limited, it is not
known why the appellants have filed the Industrial Disputes after a
long delay of 29 years. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly
dismissed the above writ petition holding in para 14 that the
appellants, after having been denied employment in the year 1975,
they had waited for 29 long years and belatedly approached the
Labour Court with the industrial disputes that would show that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.834 of 2014
appellants are guilty of laches in approaching the Labour Court for
redressal. In para 15, it has been held that a condition has been
prescribed by introducing Clause (3) to Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, which shows that the dismissed or retrenched
employee has to raise the industrial dispute within three years from
the date of dismissal, termination or retrenchment and though such a
condition was not there when the industrial disputes were raised by
the appellants, the subsequent change in the legislature will be the
guiding factor to decide the question of laches. Therefore, this Court
cannot help the appellants to re-open the stale claim, when they have
slept over the matter for 29 long years and raised the industrial
disputes only in the year 2004. Hence, we are unable to find any merit
to interfere with either the Award passed by the Labour Court
dismissing the industrial disputes or the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge confirming the dismissal of the Labour Court.
6.For the reasons mentioned above, the writ appeal stands
dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.J.) (V.S.G.J.)
09.08.2021
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.834 of 2014
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vga
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
W.A.No.834 of 2014
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
