Madras High Court
G.Balasubramanian vs The Management Of Ashok Leyland ... on 21 July, 2023
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.SR No.69887 of 2023
&
C.M.P.No.11997 of 2023
G.Balasubramanian .. Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem. .. Respondents/Respondents
WA.SR. is filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent against the order
of this Court, dated 27.09.2019, made in W.P.No.27559 of 2005.
For Appellant :: Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondent 1 :: Mr.Sanjay Mohan,
for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam&Associates.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J .)
The above C.M.P. has been listed today to condone the delay of
1160 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
2. Appellant/petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court,
to which one of us (Justice S.Vaidyanathan) is a Member, in S.Raja v.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2023 (3) CTC 736, wherein, this Court has
interfered with the punishment of dismissal for abusing a superior
employee, holding the shirt collar of the official. In this case, the charge
against the employee is that he assaulted his superior.
3. We are not inclined to go into the merit of the matter.
Appellant/petitioner is trying to get the delay condoned only based on the
decision of this Court referred to above. Production of medical records and
intervention of Covid-19 are all created for the purpose of condonation of
delay of nearly four years.
4. Even going by the records, it is seen that the
appellant/petitioner has undergone only cataract surgery and there is no
reason why he should have waited for four years. That apart, Covid struck
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
the entire world in March,2020, and the decision of the learned single Judge
was dated 27.09.2019.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the contesting respondent in
the Miscellaneous Petition.
6. We find that no prima facie case is made out to condone the
delay, as the reasons adduced for the delay are not acceptable.
7. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
'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.
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 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.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, in the
case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
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."
9. 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.
[S.V.N.,J] [K.R.S.,J]
21.07.2023
dixit
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.SR.No.69887/2023 & C.M.P.No.11997/2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
dixit
W.A.SR No.69887 of 2023 &
C.M.P. No.11997 of 2023
21-07-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
