Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs K. Ramamoorthy on 5 April, 2023
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
&
C.M.P. No. 7948 of 2023
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited,
rep. by its General Manager,
Mr.V. Arjunan ..Appellant
Vs.
1. K. Ramamoorthy
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner
of Labour,
DMS Compound,
Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 21.07.2022 in W.P. No.
18423 of 2022.
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
For Appellant :: Mr.M. Aswin
For Respondents :: Mrs.C. Sangamithirai
Special Govt. Pleader for R2
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 21.07.2022, passed in W.P.No.18423 of 2022, confirming the
order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, rejecting the
approval petition filed by the appellant management.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first
respondent, who was working as a Conductor under the appellant
Management, for not issuing tickets to two women passengers after getting
money from them. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the first
respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.09.2014.
Following that, the appellant Management filed an approval petition before
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
the 2nd respondent. The said petition was dismissed by the 2nd
respondent/Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Aggrieved over the
said order of dismissal, the appellant Management preferred the writ
petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge,
confirming the order of the 2nd respondent.
3. The learned Single Judge referred to various decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court while dismissing the writ
petition and they are as follows:
(i) The Supreme Court, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of
India, 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195, 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
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
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.''
(ii) A Division Bench of this Court, in S.Vaidhyanathan v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, 2018 SCC OnLine, in para 14, 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.” ......
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
In para 16 of the judgment cited supra, it was 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...............”
(iii) In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan, (2006) 4
SCC 322, the Supreme Court, in 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
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
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.
(iv) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.
T.T.Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, in Paragraphs 16 and 17, the 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
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
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.”
4. In the instant case, the Approval Petition was rejected by
the 2nd respondent/Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, on
14.09.2017, whereas, the writ petition was filed by the Management only in
the year 2022, i.e., after a lapse of five years, challenging the order of the
Authority, dated 14.09.2017, and there was no explanation in the affidavit
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
nv
for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge was right in dismising the writ petition on the ground of
laches.
5. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (R.K.M.J.)
nv 05.04.2023
To
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited.
W.A. No. 834 of 2023
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
