Madras High Court
K.Ezhumalai vs The Presiding Officer on 30 March, 2023
1/4 W.A.No.724/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 30-03-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.A.No.724 of 2023
K.Ezhumalai ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Cuddalore.
2.The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
rep.by its General Manager,
Villupuram – 605 602. ... Respondents
Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order,
dated 07.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.31910 of 2014, on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Muralidharan
For Respondent 2 : Mr.M.Aswin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4 W.A.No.724/2023
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 07.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.31910 of 2014, setting aside the award of
the Labour Court, Cuddalore, reinstating the appellant employee without continuity of
service and back-wages.
2. The appellant employee is said to have joined the service of the
respondent Corporation as a Conductor, pursuant to his name being sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, and he was discharged from service on 19.02.1996 due to his
poor performance. An industrial dispute was raised after 11 ½ years and it was taken up
and adjudicated by the Labour Court in I.D.No.29 of 2008. The Labour Court has
granted the relief of reinstatement, but without back-wages, continuity of service and
other service benefits.
3. The case of the respondent Corporation was that the employee was on
probation and, as his services were not satisfactory, he was discharged from service and
that there was a delay of over a decade in raising the dispute.
4. The learned single Judge, after extracting the provisions of Section 2A of
the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, and noting that the period of limitation of three years
had come into force with effect from 15.09.2010, has categorically held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/4 W.A.No.724/2023
employee is not entitled to any relief, as the dispute has been raised belatedly. The
contention of the respondent management that the appellant employee was dismissed in
the year 1996 and the period of limitation gets over by 1999 may not be correct, as the
amendment came into effect only in the year 2010 and it has no retrospective effect. No
limitation is prescribed for an industrial dispute to be raised under Section 2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
5. However, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar
v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, 2015 (15) SCC 1, we are of the view that the
appellant employee is not entitled to any relief, as the dispute has been raised after 11 ½
years.
6. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 30-03-2023
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
dixit
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/4 W.A.No.724/2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
dixit
W.A.No.724 of 2023
30-03-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
