Madras High Court
A.M. Shanmugasundaram vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 3 September, 2021
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
A.M. Shanmugasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Labour, The Appellate Authority,
Under the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishment Act, 1947,
Teynampet, Chennai – 6.
2. The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its Special Officer,
4, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai – 1. ...Respondents
***
Prayer in C.M.P. No.10352 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2937 days in in preferring
W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021.
Prayer in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2012 in
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
W.P.No.22881 of 2007 and consequently direct the first respondent to decide
the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 on its merits and in accordance with law
and pass orders within the time frame stipulated by this Court.
***
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent-1 : Court
For Respondent-2 : Mr.A.Selvendran
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
W.P.No.22881 of 2007 was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner to
quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.06.2006 and
consequently to direct the first respondent to take up the main appeal on file
by condoning the delay of 437 days and decide the same on merits.
2. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 30.01.2012
holding as follows:
“ 9. One can understand if a person has moved other
forums or before the correct forum where the remedy may
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
be time consuming, then naturally, all those period of
delay can be excluded, but in the present case right from
day one the petitioner was aware of his legal remedies as
he was holding the status of Branch Manager and the
Special Officer himself advised him to prefer an appeal
under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative
Societies Act. It is the admission of the petitioner himself
that his family members and his relatives persuaded him
not to avail any statutory remedies, if that is so, the
petitioner has to suffer for such wrong advise or wrong
pressure on him. It is not the case that he is not aware of
legal rights and subsequently, if he came to know about
his rights then leniency can be shown. But in this case,
even the materials produced before the authority does not
satisfactorily explain the reasons for the delay and this
Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
findings rendered by the authority under the Tamilnadu
Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. Hence, the writ
petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.”
Against the said order, the present appeal is filed with a delay of 2937 days.
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
3. The reason assigned by the appellant / writ petitioner is that the
surcharge proceedings were pending in appeal in C.M.A.No.12 of 2009, in
which, the orders were passed on 24.06.2011. Thereafter, yet another
surcharge proceedings were initiated against the appellant in another appeal in
C.M.A.No.1 of 2012, which was allowed on 14.11.2017.
4. The pendency of the surcharge proceedings, etc. is not a bar to file
an appeal within the prescribed time. When the writ petition was dismissed on
30.01.2012 itself, the appeal ought to have been filed within the time, but the
same is filed with a delay of 2937 days and no just and sufficient cause was
given, explaining the enormous delay in filing the above appeal. Presuming
that the reason given is pendency of the surcharge proceedings, it is
un-acceptable, as it cannot be a bar for filing the writ appeal within the time.
Therefore, the petition filed for condonation of delay is dismissed bereft of
any merit. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is rejected at the S.R. stage itself.
No costs.
[P.S.N. J.] [K.R. J.]
03.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
srn
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
To
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Labour, The Appellate Authority,
Under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 6.
2. The Special Officer,
Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
4, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai – 1.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn/sp
C.M.P.No.10352 of 2021
in
W.A.Sr.No.55814 of 2021
03.09.2021
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
