Madras High Court
The Management Of Premier vs 2 S.Mariappan on 20 October, 2021
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.6247 of 2017
The Management of Premier
Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Rep by Senior General Manager
(Personnel & Administration)
K.Sathiamoorthy, Belathur Post,
Hosur- 636 124. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem.
2 S.Mariappan
S/o.P.Samiannan,
Sozhianur, Mulakaadu Post,
Thoppur (Via),
Dharmapuri- 636 452 ... Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
first respondent in I.A. No.355/14 in I.D. No.68/13 and quash its order dated
16.11.2016 and direct the first respondent to frame a preliminary issue as to
whether the dispute raised by the second respondent was barred by limitation
and pass a preliminary order thereof before taking up the case of merits.
1/4
http://www.judis.nic.in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravindran, Sr. Advocate
for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed
For Respondent No.1 : Labour Court
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.M.D.Nasrullah for
Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
****
ORDER
The petitioner Management raised objection on the ground of
limitation under Section 2(A) Sub Section 3 of Industrial Dispute Act was denied
to be taken as preliminary issue by the Labour Court, which had necessitated
them to file the present writ petition.
2. The Labour Court, though placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in Management of Ashok Layland vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
and others [2016(151) FLR 509] and had observed that the issue of limitation
requires to be taken as a preliminary issue, had however referred to the
ultimate portion of the judgment cited supra, and held that the question of
limitation can be considered along with other issues.
3. This Court in Management of Ashok Layland case (supra), had
clearly indicated that the plea of limitation should be taken only as a
preliminary issue, for which purpose it had placed reliance on the case in
Srinivasa Rice Mills and others vs. E.S.I. Corporation [2007 (112) FLR 233
http://www.judis.nic.in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
(SC)]. The first respondent/Labour Court while passing the present impugned
order dated 16.11.2016, had not properly considered the order of this Court in
Ashok Leyland case (supra) and therefore, the decision to take up the
limitation issue along with other issues is not proper. This Court is also of the
view that once the plea of limitation is raised among other objections, the
Labour Court concerned is required to take up the plea of limitation as a
preliminary issue only and decide the same.
4 In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed
by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, dated 16.11.2016 is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem
with a direction to take up the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner/
Management as a preliminary issue and decide the same in accordance with
law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
5. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
M.S.RAMESH, J.
vaan
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
To
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
W.P.No.5833 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.6247 of 2017
Dated 20.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
