Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs 4 The Assistant Engineer on 11 July, 2023
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018 & connected C.M.Ps.
Lakshmanan Appellant in WA No.391 of 2018
N. Perumal Appellant in WA No.392 of 2018
Ammasi Appellant in WA No.393 of 2018
N. Ellappan Appellant in WA No.394 of 2018
Vadivel Appellant in WA No.395 of 2018
P. Perumal Appellant in WA No.396 of 2018
v
1 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Salem
2 The Management
Chief Engineer
Highways and Rural Works
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3 The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department
Dharmapuri
4 The Assistant Engineer
Highways Department
Pennagaram
Dharmapuri Respondents in all WAs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging
the common order dated 07.04.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.8312 to 8317 of 2017
respectively.
For appellants Mr. R. Marudhachalamurthy
in all appeals
R1 Labour Court
For RR 2-4 No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeals have been preferred challenging the common order
dated 07.04.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.8312 to 8317 of 2017, respectively.
2 To avoid verbosity and for the sake of clarity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank in these writ appeals.
3 The summary of sequence of events leading to the filing of the
present writ appeals are as under:
3.1 The appellants raised industrial disputes before the first respondent
Labour Court in the year 2008 against divesting of their duties, which resulted in
passing of ex parte awards on 25.01.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
3.2 Interlocutory Applications were filed by the second respondent
before the first respondent Labour Court seeking to condone the delay of 77 days
in setting aside the ex parte awards.
3.3 On 05.04.2013, the appellants made endorsements before the first
respondent Labour Court stating that the condone delay petitions may be allowed
on payment of costs.
3.4 Accordingly, the first respondent Labour Court, on 05.04.2013,
allowed the condone delay petitions and directed payment of costs of Rs.400/- by
the respondents 2 to 4 to the appellants on or before 30.04.2013 and listing of the
matters on 03.05.2013.
3.5 On 03.05.2013, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matters
were adjourned to 07.05.2013 and again to 09.05.2013. On 09.05.2013, there was
no representation on either side and hence, the Presiding Officer posted the
matters to 07.06.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
3.6 On 07.06.2013, the interlocutory applications were dismissed,
recording that there was no representation on either side and that costs were not
paid.
3.7 Hence, the appellants filed execution petitions on 19.01.2015 to get
the ex parte awards executed and in the said petitions, they also demanded
backwages of Rs.22,42,000/- for each of them, as could be seen from the
Execution Petitions.
3.8 While so, respondents 2 to 4 filed applications on 21.09.2015 seeking
extension of time to pay costs, which were allowed by the Labour Court on
09.11.2016 directing the respondents 2 to 4 to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the
appellants directly on or before 16.11.2016, in default of which, it was ordered
that the said orders shall stand cancelled automatically. Holding so, the matters
were posted to 17.11.2016 and on that date, cost memo was filed, based on which,
the petitions filed by respondents 2 to 4 were allowed.
3.9 The orders dated 09.11.2016 passed by the first respondent Labour
Court allowing the interlocutory applications on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to
the appellants, were challenged by the appellants before a Single Bench in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
W.P.Nos.8312 to 8317 of 2017 on the ground that the first respondent Labour
Court had become functus officio.
3.10 The said writ petitions were dismissed vide a common order dated
07.04.2017 and the relevant portions of the said common order read thus:
“4. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. The first
respondent has exercised its judicial discretion by allowing the applications on
terms. Such a discretion is not to be interfered with in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ....... Procedural law being a hand maid of
justice is not meant to destroy the rights of the parties.
5 Technicality shall not stand in the way of rendering justice. ......
The power to extend the time is always available as held by this Court in
Pakkiammal v Anaiappan (2003 CTC 228) and Kumarasamy and another v
Palaniyammal (2015 (1) CTC 271.” (emphasis supplied)
3.11 The aforesaid common order dated 07.04.2017 is put to challenge in
these writ appeals.
4 At the threshold, pertinent it is to point out that the industrial disputes
raised by the appellants were allowed ex parte way back on 25.01.2011, i.e.
almost more than 12 years ago and it is indeed melancholic that the issue in the
present writ appeals has not attained its finality, by which time, even the Pandavas
had returned to Hastinapura after their 12-year exile, of course, followed by a
period of one year remaining incognito.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
5 Be that as it may, it is worth pointing out that this very Bench granted
adjournment to the learned counsel for the appellants on 09.06.2023 and
26.06.2023 and even today, when these matters were taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for the appellants sought adjournment.
6 On the side of respondents 2 to 4 also, there was no representation,
although Mr. T. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, sought one
more opportunity, which only reflects a sorry state of affairs and less said the
better.
7 While confirming the common order passed by the Single Bench,
affirming the orders passed by the first respondent Labour Court in the
interlocutory applications, we hold that the industrial disputes stand restored on
file and we expect the Labour Court to decide the industrial disputes as
expeditiously as possible, preferably before this year end, without adjourning the
matter beyond a period of 7 working days at any point of time. The parties are
expected to appear before the first respondent Labour Court on 01.08.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
In the result, the writ appeals stand dismissed as devoid of merits. Costs
made easy. Connected C.M.Ps. stand closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
11.07.2023
cad
Note to Office: Issue order copy by 24.07.2023
To
1 The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Salem
2 The Management
Chief Engineer
Highways and Rural Works
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3 The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department
Dharmapuri
4 The Assistant Engineer
Highways Department
Pennagaram
Dharmapuri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.A. Nos.391 to 396 of 2018
11.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
