Madras High Court

The Management vs The Special Joint Commissioner Of ... on 6 June, 2022

                                                                                  W.P.No.12857of 2022

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 6.6.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                  W.P.No.12857 of 2022
                                               and W.M.P.No.12322 of 2022

                     1     The Management
                           Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                           (vpm) Ltd., Kancheepuram Region,
                           Ponnerikarai, Bangalore High Ways,
                           Kancheepuram -631 552.                         ...        Petitioner


                                                     Vs.

                     1     The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
                           D.M.S. Campus Chennai.
                     2     G.Vasantharaj (decessed)
                     3     Geetha
                     4     Divya
                     5     Lavanya                                        ...         Respondents


                     Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
                     to the order passed by the 1st respondent the Special Joint Commissioner for
                     Labour Chennai dated 17.07.2017 made in A.P.No.322 of 2013 and quash the
                     same.

                                   For Petitioner             : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
                                   For Respondent No.1        : Mr. T.Arun Kumar, A.G.P.
                                                           *****




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.No.12857of 2022

                                                       ORDER

Challenging the award passed by the Special Joint Commissioner of

Labour, Chennai, the first respondent herein, in Case No.322 of 2013, dated

17.7.2017, the petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition

before this Court on the ground that the award has been passed beyond the

scope and power vested upon under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947. According to the petitioner, the first respondent without affording

an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the enquiry proceedings conducted

by the petitioner, the impugned award has been passed. The first respondent

has tried to act as if a Labour Court acting under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act.

Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has stated

that the second respondent employee already died and further stated that the

award was passed in the year 2017, now, after the lapse of nearly 5 years, the

petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12857of 2022

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 during the year

2017, however, the same has been challenged before this Court after a lapse

of 5 years. The petitioner Management has not stated any satisfactory

explanation for inordinate delay in approaching the Court challenging the

impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Chennai.

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12857of 2022

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.” ......

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...............”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12857of 2022

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.''

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12857of 2022

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.