Madras High Court
The Management Of Sivakumar ... vs The Presiding Officer on 19 July, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
The Management of Sivakumar Spinning Mills Limited,
Madurai Road, Sankar Nagar Post, Tirunelveli District,
represented by its Director. ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
2.P.Arumugam ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 06.11.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.17993 of 2013
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Subash
for Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R2 : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.)
The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. The second respondent in
the Writ Petition was an employee in the Writ Petitioner mill from the
year 1981 onwards.
2.The management had superannuated the second respondent
in the Writ Petition on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years
on 01.07.2011. Challenging the said order of superannuation, the second
respondent in the Writ Petition had raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.
30 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
3.The Labour Court, after considering the documents on the
side of the workman, namely, Ex-P13 and Ex-P18, arrived at a finding
that the date of birth of the workman is 05.06.1960. Thereafter, the
Labour Court proceeded to allow the petition and directed the
management to reinstate the workman with back wages and other
benefits. This award of the Labour Court was challenged by the
management in W.P(MD)No.17993 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
4.The Writ Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition on
the ground of laches, as the Writ Petition has been filed one year after the
award of the Labour Court. This order of the Writ Court is under
challenge in the present appeal.
5.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, they have
offered explanation for the delay in filing the Writ Petition in their writ
affidavit. He further contended that the employee, while getting enrolled
in the EPF scheme as well as in the ESI scheme, has given his year of
birth as 1953 and after attaining superannuation, behind the back of the
management, the employee has chosen to approach the EPF authorities to
change his date of birth in the EPF records as 05.06.1960. Therefore, the
Writ Court should have considered the Writ Petition on merits instead of
dismissing the same on the ground of laches.
6.Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second
respondent/workman had contended that the workman had filed Ex.P13,
which is a voter identity card and Ex-P18, which is a school record sheet
of the workman, which would clearly indicate that his date of birth is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
05.06.1960 and not 1953, as claimed by the management. He further
contended that instead of reinstating the workman, as per the award of
the Labour Court, the management has chosen to file a Writ Petition after
a period of one year and therefore, he prayed for sustaining the order
passed by the Writ Court.
7.The Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition primarily on
the ground of laches. A perusal of the writ affidavit discloses that the
management has not assigned any reasons whatsoever for filing the Writ
Petition with a delay of one year.
8.That apart, we are convinced that the school record marked
as Ex-P18 clearly reveals that the date of birth of the workman is
05.06.1960 and not 1953, as claimed by the management. The
management has not filed any record whatsoever to establish the fact that
the employee was born in the year 1953, except producing Ex-M3, which
is not a service register, but some loose sheets, wherein, the year of birth
of the workman is mentioned as 1953. The said Ex-M3 does not have the
signature or attestation of the concerned employee. Therefore, we are not
inclined to accept the said document, namely, Ex-M3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
9.In view of the aforesaid deliberations, not only on the ground
of laches, but also on the ground of merit, we are not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal
lacks merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
19.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
cmr
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
W.A.(MD)No.1313 of 2013
19.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
