Madras High Court

The Joint Director/Special ... vs B.Balakrishnan on 19 April, 2022

                                                                          W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated: 19.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                         W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022
                                                       and
                                      W.M.P.No.9014, 9322, 9325, 9326 of 2022


                       The Joint Director/Special Officer,
                       INCO-9, Pandalur Co-operative Tea Factory,
                       Pandalur Taluk,
                       Nilgiris District – 643 233.        ... Petitioner in all writ petitions

                                                        Vs.
                       B.Balakrishnan                          ... Respondent in WP .9247/2022

S.K.Muralidharan ... Respondent in WP .9587/2022 J.Prabudass ... Respondent in WP .9590/2022

Prayer in W.P.No.9247/2022: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, made in I.D.No.245 of 2010 dated 17.05.2017 and quash the portion of the impugned award directing the petitioner to pay 25% of back wages and attendant benefits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

Prayer in W.P.No.9587/2022: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, made in I.D.No.246 of 2010 dated 17.05.2017 and quash the portion of the impugned award directing the petitioner to pay 25% of back wages and attendant benefits.

Prayer in W.P.No.9590/2022: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, made in I.D.No.247 of 2010 dated 17.05.2017 and quash the portion of the impugned award directing the petitioner to pay 25% of back wages and attendant benefits.

                                                    In all writ petitions

                                       For Petitioner     : Mr.Arun Dhanapalan



                                                   COMMON ORDER

The relief sought for in the writ petitions are for a Writ of

Crtiorari Mandamus quashing the award passed by the Labour Court,

Coimbatore in I.D.No.245, 246 and 247 of 2010 dated 17.05.2017.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in the writ

petitions are one and the same and hence, this court passes the common

order.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief:

The petitioner is an Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory,

registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The

respondents are the permanent workers under the petitioner Factory

and they were assigned the work of collection of green tea laves.

During their work, there was a deficit in collection of tea leaves. Hence,

notice was issued seeking explanation and to recover the loss for the

deficit tea leaves and thereafter, they were transferred from leaf

collection work to production side. The respondents did not attend duty

from 11.08.2008 and hence show cause notice was issued seeking

explanation for the unauthorised absence from work. In such

circumstances, the respondents approached the Labour Court by filing

petition under Industrial Dispute Act and sought reinstatement with

continuity of service. The Labour Court has allowed the petitions and

directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents as leaf supervisor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

with continuity of service and to pay 25% of back wages from the date

of termination. Challenging the above said Award, the writ petitions are

filed.

4. The petitioner has raised the grounds that the transfer of

respondents from leaf collection work to the production side is not a

vindictive act and all the workmen are liable to be transferred from one

job, department, section to another and they shall do the work, as per

the instructions of the employer. Further, the respondents had not

reported duty and refused to do work. Therefore, the principle of " no

work and no pay" will applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the

Award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and the same is liable to be

quashed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the respondents were reinstated into service and hence, they have

challenged the Award only in respect of payment of 25% back wages

from the date of termination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged the

entire Award passed by the Labour Court and they have challenged the

Award only with regard to the payment of 25% of back wages to the

respondents/employees. The Award has been passed on 17.05.2017.

But the writ petition has been filed during 2022, nearly after 5 years. A

perusal of the affidavit shows that there is no explanation for the

inordinate delay in approaching the court.

7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The

Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case, reported in 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195

[Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India), has held as follows;

'8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of laches on his part, no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief to the petitioner no other person's rights are going to be affected. He also cited certain decisions to that effect. This plea ignores the fact that the said consideration is only one of the considerations which the court will take into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from laches. It is not the only consideration.

It is a well-settled policy of law that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

Limitation Act and other rules of limitation. If they choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and that is what precisely the Delhi-High Court has none. We cannot say that the High Court was not entitled to say so in its discretion.”

8. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of

S.Vaidhyanathan Vs.Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2018

SCC OnLine, in para 14, it is held as under ;

“14. There is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant. What is latches is as follows:

“Laches or reasonable time are not defined under any statute or Rules. “Latches” or “Lashes” is an old french word for slackness or negligence or not doing. In general sense, it means neglect to do what in the law should have been done for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time. What could be the latches in one case might not constitute in another. The latches to non-suit, an aggrieved person from challenging the acquisition proceedings should be inferred from the conduct of the land owner or an interested person and that there should be a passive inaction for a reasonable length of time. What is reasonable time has not been explained in any of the enactment. Reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” ......

In para 16 of the judgment cited supra, it is held as under;

16. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

results in benefit of discretionary power being denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the remedy, is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity alone...............”

9. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan reported

in (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 6, held

as follows:

“6. Delay or latches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party'.....

16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022

jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

10. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not approached the

court within the reasonable time. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down

in the above cited decisions, and also considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present writ

petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

11. Accordingly, the writ petitions in W.P.9247, 9587, 9590 of

2022 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

19.04.2022

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mst

The Labour Court, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9247, 9587, 9590 of 2022