Madras High Court
The Management vs C.Subramanian on 1 March, 2022
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.4473 & 4475 of 2022
The Management,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai,
Bangalore High Ways,
Kancheepuram – 631 552. ... Petitioner
vs.
C.Subramanian ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the order passed by the Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai,
dated 05.01.2018 made in A.P.No.92 of 2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanakumar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by
the Special Joint Commissioner for Labour, Chennai, dated 05.01.2018 made
in A.P.No.92 of 2014.
2. According to the writ petitioner-management, the Special Joint
Commissioner for Labour, Chennai, has passed an impugned order dated
05.01.2018, by rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner on the
ground of 6 days delay in filing the said approval petition. Challenging the
said order, the petitioner-management has filed the instant writ petition.
3. On a perusal of the order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Special
Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, it appears that the writ petitioner-
management had filed an approval petition seeking for an approval for the
order of dismissal dated 21.03.2014, passed against the respondent from the
Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and the same was rejected
by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, on the ground that the
said order has not been passed following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lall Ram v DCM Chemical Works, reported in AIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
1978 SC 1004.
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.4354 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
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.”
Now, the writ petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of four years,
challenging the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2018, and there is no explanation
in the affidavit for the inordinate delay in filing the approval petition.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition in the light
of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court. Thus, there is no merits in this writ petition and
no prima facie has been made out and consequently, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
01.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
To
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
uma
W.P.No.4354 of 2022
and
W.M.P Nos.4473 & 4475 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
