Madras High Court
The Management vs The Special Deputy on 13 June, 2022
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 12361 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No. 11805 of 2022
The Management,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai,
Bangalore High Ways,
Kancheepuram – 631 552.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Special Deputy
Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai.
2. C. Natarajan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
relating to the order passed by Special Joint Commissioner for Labour,
Chennai, dated 28.12.2017 made in A.P.No. 41 of 2015 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr. T. Chezhiyan
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the award passed by the Labour
Court, Chennai, made in A.P.No. 41 of 2015 dated 28.12.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief:
2.1. The petitioner management filed the instant writ petition
challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court.
2.2. According to the petitioner management, the second
respondent was working as Conductor, while so, charges were framed
against him and enquiry was conducted and show cause notice was
served to the second respondent and the second respondent in response
to the show cause notice, submitted the explanations. Based on the
finding of the equiry officer, punishment order has been passed by the
petitioner management. Thereafter the petitioner had A.P.No. 41 of
2015 of before the first respondent. The said approval petition was
rejected by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
2.3. According to the petitioner, he has followed the guildelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalla Ram vs. DCM
Chemical works reported in (AIR 1978 SC 1004). Therefore, the first
respondent has rejected the approval petition without adhering to the
said guideline and also states that no opportunity has been granted to
him. He further states that having held that the petitioner has not filed
enquiry proceedings conducted against the second respondent in
A.P.No. 41 of 2015, the first respondent should have given an
opportunity to the petitioner corporation. Hence filed the instant writ
petition before this Court.
3. On considering the facts, the first respondent after hearing
both sides and adducing oral and documentary evidence and
considering the documents marked on the side of the petitioner
management had rejected the said approval petition on 28.12.2017
filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Challenging
the said order dated 28.12.2017, the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition on 21.02.2022. Therefore, in the light of the earlier decision
of this Court, the said writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground
of delay and latches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
4. 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 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.”
5. 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 ;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
“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...............”
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
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.
7. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.06.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
mrn
To
1. The Labour Court,
Chennai.
2. The Special Deputy
Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12361 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
(mrn)
W.P.No. 12361 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No. 11805 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
