Madras High Court
The Management vs S.Malarvizhi on 8 September, 2022
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 08.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.24059 of 2022 and
WMP No.23037, 23069 of 2022
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region, Ponnerikarai,
Bangalore High Ways, Kancheepuram 631 552. ... Petitioner
Vs.
R. Sundaram (deceased)
1. S.Malarvizhi]
2. S.Reena
3. S.Rajesh Kumar
4. S.Kugan
5. The Special Joint Commission of Labour,
DMS Campus, Chennai. ...
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
relating to the order passed by the first respondent, the Special Joint
Commissioner for Labour, Chennai dated 21.04.2015 made in
A.P.No.101 of 2011 and quash the same.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
For petitioner : Mr.M.Aswin
For respondents : Mr.K.Ramesh for R1 to R4
Mrs. Geetha Thamarai Selvan,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken
up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of
Certiorari quashing the order passed by the first respondent dated
21.04.2015 made in A.P.No.101 of 2011 and quash the same.
3. The respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased
Sundaram and while he was in service died on 17.01.2009, in an
accident. According to the petitioner Management, due to rash and
negligent driving of the deceased, he died and Inview of the above
accident, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo was
issued on 16.02.2009. The enquiry officer filed report holding that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
charges levelled against employee were proved and thereafter, final
order has been passed, removing him from service. The petitioner
management filed approval petition in A.P.101 of 2011 before the
Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. But it was dismissed by the
Commissioner vide order dated 21.04.2015. The above order is
impugned herein.
4. A perusal of the records shows that the impugned dismissal
order has been passed on 21.04.2015 and the present writ petition has
been filed in the year 2022, i.e. nearly after a lapse of 7 years. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
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 ;
“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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
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 management has not
approached the court within the reasonable time. 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 latches.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
mst
To
The Special Joint Commission of Labour,
DMS Campus, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
W.P.No.24059 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
