Madras High Court
The Management vs Rajamani on 7 August, 2023
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
and CMP(MD)No.5548 of 2019
The Management,
National Textile Corporation (TN & P) Ltd.,
Coimbatore.
... Petitioner
Vs
Rajamani
... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 10.05.2019 in I.A.
No. 59 of 2016 in I.D. No. 230 of 2001 on the file of the Labour Court,
Madurai by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravichandran
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
ORDER
To set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 10.05.2019 in
I.A. No. 59 of 2016 in I.D. No. 230 of 2001 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, the revision petitioner has filed
this Civil Revision Petition.
2.The petitioner is the respondent/respondent, and the
respondent is the petitioner/petitioner before the Court below. For the sake
of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status before
the Court below.
3.The brief facts, which give rise for filing of the instant civil
revision petition are as follows:
(i)It appears that the petitioner has filed an application under
Section 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the order of
termination, dated 23.01.2019. While the said industrial dispute was
pending, due to the ailment of the petitioner’s wife, he was unable to
contact his counsel, therefore, the same was dismissed for default on
12.09.2011. When he filed an application for restoration of the industrial
dispute, there occurred a delay of 1542 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
(ii)It appears that the petitioner has contended before the
Court below that his wife was suffering from heart ailment, since August
2011 and he has been taking care of his wife and she was discharged from
the hospital only on 04.04.2012. Since she had been suffering from heart
ailment, he took care of his wife for more than 3 ½ years.
(iii)In the meanwhile, when he approached his counsel on
17.08.2012, he came to know about the fate of the case. Therefore, there
was a delay of 1542 days in filing the connected application for restoration
of industrial dispute.
(iv)The said application was resisted by the
respondent/respondent on the ground that the reason assigned by the
petitioner is not believable and that the Labour Court is functus officio. In
the said application, the petitioner was examined himself as PW1 and
marked six documents. After considering the pleadings, evidence and
materials on record, the trial Court has believed the reasons stated by the
petitioner and allowed the application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
(v)Aggrieved with the said order, the respondent has
approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of
delay will not come within the definition of ‘sufficient cause’ and that very
ailment of the petitioner’s wife has not been proved in the manner known
to law. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Court below without even any material or pleadings has mentioned
the so called pathetic condition of the petitioner. Hence, prays to allow the
revision petition.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that very defence put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding functus officio cannot be taken into consideration in view of
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Haryana Suraj Malting
Ltd., Vs Phool Chand in Civil Appeal No.5650 of 2018. Further more, the
learned counsel for the respondent submit that he has proved before the
Court below about the reason for the delay. Therefore, the order of the
Court below is justifiable and there is no ground for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
6.I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submission.
7.The main grounds urged by the petitioner for condonation of
1542 days is the ailment of the petitioner’s wife. It appears that the
petitioner has submitted documents before the Court below, namely the
medical reports of the petitioner’s wife as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6, which has
been heavily relied on by the Court below and has arrived at a conclusion
that there was a justifiable reason for condonation of delay. The Court
below has also observed that the Industrial Dispute Act is being a welfare
legislation, in order to give substantial justice, the Court should be elastic
enough to consider the reason assigned by the petitioner.
8.From the perusal of records, this Court is of the opinion that
the ailment suffered by the petitioner’s wife has been proved before the
Court below. This Court is of the opinion that the above reason stated by
the petitioner would come within the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’. Apart
from that in a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan
Vs.M.Krishnamoorthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123, it has been held that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
whenever the Court below has considered the grounds of the petitioner for
condonation of delay positively, unless the said finding is perverse, the
revisional Court shouldbe slow in interfering with the orders of the trial
Court. Therefore, this Court could not find any manifest error in the order
passed by the Court below. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order of the Court below.
9.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PNM
To
1.The Labour Court, Madurai
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.,
PNM
ORDER IN
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No. 993 of 2019
and CMP(MD)No.5548 of 2019
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
