Madras High Court
Union Of India vs The Presiding Officer on 3 January, 2023
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.SR No.39136 of 2016
&
C.M.P.No.10951of 2016
1.Union of India,
rep. by the General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Madras – 600 023.
2.The Divisional Railway Manager,
Madurai Division,
Southern Railway,
Madurai-625 016. .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Labour Court,
Madras
2.A.Palaniyandi .. Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
WA.SR. is filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent against the order
of this Court, dated 17.03.2014, made in W.P.No.9697 of 2002.
For Appellants :: Mrs.Srijayanthi
For Respondent 2 :: Mrs.Jasmin Padma,
for Mr.L.Chandrakumar.
ORDER
The above C.M.P. has been listed today to condone the delay
of 519 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
2. An affidavit has been filed in support of the Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions, outlining the reasons that have attributed to the
delay of 519 days in preferring the Writ Appeal. From a perusal of the
affidavit, it is seen that since the petitioners came to know of the order
passed by this Court in the Writ Petition only on 21.09.2015 when the
second respondent submitted a representation to them enclosing a copy of
the said order and after discussion with the officers of the Divisional Office,
the decision was taken to file Writ Appeal and that the Law Branch of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
Head Quarters Office was requested to nominate a panel advocate to file the
Writ Appeal and the case file was processed at various stages in the offices
of the petitioners as well as the Head Quarters Office, appropriate steps
could not be taken to prefer the Writ Appeal in time, resulting in the
aforesaid delay of 519 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that since the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and had occurred
only due to administrative reasons, the delay may be condoned.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent in the miscellaneous
petition.
4. On reading of the Affidavit, we find that no prima facie case is
made out to condone the delay, as the reasons adduced for the delay are not
acceptable.
5. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if
there is any justifiable ground, the delay has to be condoned. Assuming that
the delay is very small and the reasons are not germane, the Court cannot
condone the same. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court
(SVNJ & MVJ), by an order dated 15.02.2018, in the case of M/s.Ruskim
Sea Foods Limited vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
MANU/TN/0876/2018, which was filed to condone the delay of 765 days in
preferring the Appeal, dismissed the said Petition. Relevant Paragraph of
the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of
discretion to be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is
true that the length and breadth of delay is not relevant, but the
acceptance of explanation can only be a relevant criterion for
the concerned Court to deal with / condone the aspect of
'Condonation of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner /
concerned litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or
project sufficient cause or good cause to condone the delay with
a view to enable the Concerned Court to take a liberal view with
a view to secure the ends of justice.
5. While dealing with yet another similar issue of condoning a huge
delay, a Division Bench of this Court, has observed as follows:
“4. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in
these types of Petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and
attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The
above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as
the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh
the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and
the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of
liberal approach. There is an increasing tendency to perceive
delay even in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to
nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself.
5 . Considering the above aspects and further the
Affidavit filed for condoning the delay, did not contain any
details as to how the delay of 1860 days had occurred and that
no plausible and proper explanation was assigned for each
and every day's delay, we are of the view that it is a fit case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
where the discretion cannot be exercised for condonation of
the delay. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking
condonation of 1860 days delay in preferring the Appeal is
dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands
dismissed.”
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1269/2021, has held as follows:
“7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed as under:-
“The laws of limitation are founded on public
policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
“statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of
limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind
of limitation is essential for public order. The principle
is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litium”, that is, the interest of the State requires that
there should be end to litigation but at the same time
laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice
suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and
preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit
for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan
for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.
Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come
to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.”
7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and
held by this Court that the discretion to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case. It is further observed that
the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even
though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but
it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has
acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is
inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for
condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is
observed that each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid down by
this Court. It is further observed that if courts start
condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out
by imposing conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing utter
disregard to legislature. 7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam
Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the
ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help
those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their
rights”.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and
considering the averments in the application for condonation
of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation
much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been
offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before
the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in
preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all
justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge
delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion
judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while
condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane.
Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge
delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as
well as on facts.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated
16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of
1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground
of delay. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs."
6. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to
condone the delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No
costs.
7. Since the amount involved is meagre, we expect the
petitioners/Railway to disburse the same to the second respondent, as
directed by the Labour Court, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
[S.V.N.,J] [M.S.Q.,J]
03.01.2023
dixit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
To
The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Labour Court,
Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.39136/2016 & C.M.P.No.10951/2016
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dixit
W.A.SR No.39136 of 2016 &
C.M.P. No.10951 of 2016
03-01-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
