Madras High Court
The Management vs P.Ramesh Kumar on 11 January, 2023
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.290, 293 and 297 of 2023
The Management,
M/s.Mehala Machines India Ltd.,
formerly known as
M/s.Sanmarco Texmac (P) LTd.,
No.36, Harvey Road,
Tiruppur - 641 602,
Rep. by its Director. ... Petitioner
In all W.Ps.
Vs.
P.Ramesh Kumar ... Respondent
In W.P.No.304 of 2023
M.Nagarajan ... Respondent
In W.P.No.307 of 2023
1.B.Sivakumar
2.M/s.Sanmarco Texmac (P) Ltd.,
No.36, Harvey Road,
Tiruppur - 641 602,
Rep. by its Director. ... Respondents
In W.P.No.311 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore pertaining to his
proceedings in I.A.Nos.3, 3 and 1 of 2021 in I.D.Nos.92, 93 and 94 of 2005
and quash the order all dated 10.11.2022 and consequently dismiss the
restoration petition in I.A.Nos.4,4, and 2 of 2021 in I.D.Nos.92, 93 and 94
of 2005.
For Petitioner
In all W.Ps. : Mr.R.Siva Kumar
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed, challenging separate orders all
dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore
in I.D.Nos.92, 93 and 94 of 2005.
2. By orders passed in the respective Interlocutory Applications, the
application filed by the respective respondents seeking to condone the delay
in restoring the respective I.Ds., which were dismissed for default, were
allowed by the Labour Court. The details of the Interlocutory Applications
and the I.D Nos. are detailed hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
W.P.No. I.D.No. I.A.No. Order date No. of days
delay in filing
304 of 2023 92 of 2005 1 of 2021 10.11.2022 3234
307 of 2023 93 of 2005 3 of 2021 10.11.2022 3234
311 of 2023 94 of 2005 1 of 2021 10.11.2022 1940
3. The respective respondents had sought for reinstatement of their
service with full wages in the respective main I.Ds. They claim that they are
workmen, employed with the petitioner Management and that they had been
terminated arbitrarily and illegally from service. The matter was posted for
enquiry and on that date, since they failed to appear, the Labour Court had
dismissed the respective I.Ds for default. Thereafter, after a long lapse of
time, they had filed the aforementioned Interlocutory Applications, seeking
to condone the delay in filing an application to restore the respective I.Ds
which was earlier dismissed for default by the Labour Court. They had also
filed separate Interlocutory Applications, as referred to supra, seeking to
restore the respective I.Ds. which were dismissed for default.
4. Admittedly, the delay is an inordinate delay. The reasons given by
the respective respondents for condoning the delay are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
a) The respective respondents believed the representations of the
petitioner Management that they will settle their claim;
b) Some of the co-workers viz., Suresh and Muthukumar were given a
monetary package of Rs.6,46,000/- and Rs.6,61,200/- respectively vide
E.P.Nos.25 and 30 of 2018. According to them, the co-workers are similarly
placed. Therefore, they were under the impression that their claim also will
be settled by the petitioner Management;
c) Due to covid-19 pandemic situation, they were unable to contact
their lawyers for taking steps to restore the respective I.Ds. which were
dismissed for default;
d) The respective respondents have also issued a legal notice to the
new petitioner Management, seeking compensation;
e) The change of petitioner Management also lead to the delay in
filing an application, seeking to restore the respective I.Ds. which was
earlier dismissed for default.
5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Management had also filed
a counter statement, denying the allegations of the respective respondents in
these Writ Petitions. According to them, the settlement made by them was in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
respect of workmen and not in respect of apprentices. A categorical stand
was taken by the petitioner Management that the respective respondents in
these Writ Petitions are apprentices and therefore, the Industrial Dispute
viz., I.D.Nos.92, 93 and 94 of 2005 are not maintainable. They had stated in
their Counter Affidavit before the Labour Court that being an inordinate
delay ranging from seven years to ten years and that too when no sufficient
reasons have been given by the respective respondents, the inordinate delay
cannot be condoned.
6. The Labour Court under the impugned orders, after giving due
consideration to the contentions of the petitioner Management, has rejected
the same by accepting the reasons given by the respective respondents for
condoning the inordinate delay. The Labour Court has also taken note of the
fact that the Industrial Disputes Act as a social welfare legislation is meant
for saving the livelihood of the labourers and only thereafter, has condoned
the delay by accepting the reasons given by the respective respondents for
condoning the inordinate delay. It is also recorded in the impugned orders
that the fact of the settlement made by the petitioner Management to the co-
workers of the respective respondents has not been denied by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
Management. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner Management before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Management drew the attention
of this Court to the following authorities in support of his submissions that
the inordinate delay ought not to have been condoned by the Labour Court:
a) Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu
Mercantile Bank Ltd., Vs. Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishments Act, Madurai and Others reported in
MANU/TN/0726/1989;
The aforesaid Judgment is a Judgment rendered under the Tamil
Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and not under the Industrial Disputes
Act. In the aforesaid Judgment, the inordinate delay in filing the Statutory
Appeal was condoned by the Appellate authority which was the subject
matter of challenge in the Writ Petitions. The Division Bench held that since
there was no sufficient explanation provided, the delay ought not to have
been condoned by the Appellate authority. The facts of the instant case are
different from the facts of the aforementioned decision of the Division
Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
In the case on hand, it is an Industrial Dispute raised before the
Labour Court and is a original proceeding and not an appellate proceeding
as in the case of the aforementioned Division Bench Judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court has no applicability with the facts of the
instant case.
b) The next Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of C.S.Gajendran and Others Vs. The Management
of Sri Gandiban Bus Service and Others reported MANU/TN/0520/1968
has also got no applicability to the facts of the instant case. That was also a
decision rendered under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and not
under the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the rights of a workman who
stands under a different pedestal.
8. The Industrial Disputes Act as rightly observed by the Labour
Court in the impugned order is a Social Welfare Legislation which protects
the interest of the workman.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
9. The petitioner Management may contend that the respective
respondents are not workmen, but, are only apprentices, but, the said issue
can be decided only in the main I.Ds. and not in the Interlocutory
Applications.
10. The Labour Court has given due consideration to the reasons
given by the respective respondents and only thereafter, has got satisfied
that the reasons are satisfactory.
11. The Labour Court has exercised its Judicial discretion by applying
its mind to the reasons given by the respective respondents for the
inordinate delay and only thereafter, allowed the Interlocutory Applications
which is the subject matter of challenge in these Writ Petitions.
12. This Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not an Appellate Court. When the Labour Court has
exercised its discretion based on sound reason, the question of interference
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not arise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
This Court does not find any merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly,
these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected
Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
W.P.Nos.304, 307 and 311 of 2023
11.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
