Madras High Court
The Management vs Mr.S. Palani on 11 August, 2023
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.2170 of 2023
&
C.M.P. No. 18606 of 2023
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(VPM) Ltd., Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai near Karapettai post,
Chennai – Bangalore Highways,
Kancheepuram District – 631 552. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. Mr.S. Palani
2. The Special Joint Commissioner
of Labour,
Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 06.06.2022 in W.P. No.
1\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
12412 of 2022.
For Appellant :: Mr.S. Pavithra
For Respondents :: Mrs.C. Sangamithirai
Special Govt. Pleader for R2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 06.06.2022, passed in W.P.No.12412 of 2022, confirming the
order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, rejecting the
approval petition filed by the appellant management.
2. The first respondent, who was working as a Conductor under the
appellant Management, reamined unauthorisedly absent from duty from
16.10.2013. Though the Management permitted him to join duty on
21.01.2014, he absented from duty again from 02.02.2014. Hence,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent by
issuance of charge memo dated 30.12.2013 and on conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent was dismissed from service
2\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
vide order dated 25.08.2014. Following that, the appellant Management
filed an approval petition in A.P. No. 187 of 2014 under Section 33(2)(b) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Special Deputy Commissioner of
Labour seeking approval of the order of dismissal from service. The said
petition was dismissed by the 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 Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai.
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
3\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
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.''
(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 laches is as follows:
“Laches or reasonable time are not defined under any
statute or Rules. “Laches” 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
4\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
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 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 laches 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,
5\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
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.
(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
6\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
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.”
4. In the instant case, the Approval Petition was rejected by
the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 12.09.2017, whereas, the
writ petition was filed by the Management only in the year 2022, i.e., after a
7\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
lapse of five years, challenging the order of the Authority, dated
12.09.2017, and there is no explanation in the affidavit 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.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.
nv
5. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.)
nv 11.08.2023
To
The General Manager,
8\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Limited.
W.A. No. 2170 of 2023
9\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
