Madras High Court
The Management vs The General Secretary on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 6.6.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.12296 of 2022
The Management
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(vpm) Ltd., Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai, Bangalore High Ways,
Kancheepuram 631552. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The General Secretary
M.G.R.Transport Employees Union
Rep. by Thiru Ravi,
No.5, Kuks Salai, Chennai 600012. ... Respondent
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
pertaining to the order passed in I.D.No.92 of 2009 dated 25.08.2012 on the
file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents : Mr. T.Arun Kumar, A.G.P.
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the petitioner Management had issued
a show cause notice dated 20.10.1993 to the respondent stating that the
respondent has to pass Tamil Language test within a period of two years from
the date of his appointment, otherwise he will be terminated from service
without any prior intimation. Again on 23.7.1997, a show cause notice was
issued to the respondent calling for explanations as to why the petitioner
should not be discharged from service and since there was no positive reply, he
was discharged from service by order dated 6.10.1997 and the petitioner was
subsequently, terminated from service on 6.10.1997. Thereafter, he passed
Tamil test in 1998 and the respondent was reinstated in service. However, the
respondent was reappointed as fresh employee. The petitioner Management
has not taken into account the service as continuous service. Therefore, the
respondent Union has raised Industrial Dispute and the same was referred to
the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai has passed an award in I.D.No.92 of 2009 dated 25.8.2012 directing
the petitioner Management to give continuity of service to the respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, the Management of the Transport Corporation has
preferred the present writ petition wherein the Management raised various
grounds to assail the impugned award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly
objected by stating that the award was passed in the year 2012, now, after the
lapse of 10 years, the Management has filed the present writ petition and
therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
3. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
4. On perusal of the impugned award passed by the II Additional
Labour Court, Chennai shows that the award has been passed in the year 2012,
however, the same has been challenged before this Court after a lapse of 10
years. The petitioner Management has not stated any satisfactory explanation
for inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
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
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.”
6. 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.” ......
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
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 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...............”
7. 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 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.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
8. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.
T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at Paragraphs 16 and 17, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required
to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the
same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the
citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the
primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or
pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to
scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of
equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not
be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the
part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic
norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of
time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise
like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes
injury to the lis.”
9. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions,
this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and laches.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
6.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
W.P.No.12827 of 2022
Dated: 6.6.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
