Madras High Court
M. Rajendran vs 4 The Inspector Of Labour on 19 September, 2023
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
1 M. Rajendran
2 S. Elangovan
3 M. Nagamani
4 S. Babu Appellants
v
1 The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
represented by the Chairman
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002
2 The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002
3 The Superintending Engineer
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
Cuddalore
4 The Inspector of Labour
Cuddalore Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
order dated 07.11.2019 passed in W.P. No.22447 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
For appellants Mr. N. Suresh
For RR 1 to 3 Mr. Anand Gopalan
for M/s. T.S. Gopalan
JUDGMENT
(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
The order passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.22447 of
2011 is under assail in this writ appeal.
2 Today, when this writ appeal was taken up for hearing, it was
conceded by either side that the issue involved in this writ appeal was
considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in A. Ravi v The
TANGEDCO and 3 others1. The operative portion of the said order reads
thus:
“9. In view of the above, while setting aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge and allowing the writ appeals, the
respondent Corporation is directed to implement the order passed by
the Labour Inspector, within six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. However, the benefit of conferment status would
be admissible to the appellants/writ petitioners only for the period
they have served in the respondent Corporation and not for the
period during which they were not serving the respondent
Corporation. To make it clear, if any of the appellants/writ
petitioners was either discontinued from the contract or terminated,
the benefit arising out of the order of the Labour Inspector would be
only for the period of service and not after their discontinuance or
termination, for which, the appellants/writ petitioners would be at
liberty to take recourse as available to them, if they are so
interested.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 W.A. Nos.2252,2254,2260,2274,2253,2268,2271,2257,2256 & 2276 of 2021 decided on 22.02.2022
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
3 In view of the above, this writ appeal also deserves to be allowed
on the terms on which A. Ravi (supra) was allowed.
4 Further, in C.M.P. No.18403 of 2023 filed by the appellants
seeking to condone the delay of 1,083 days in filing this writ appeal, this
Court condoned the said delay, however, with a rider. For ease of reference,
the relevant portion of the order condoning the delay is extracted below:
“2 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.
Anand Gopalan representing M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., learned
counsel on record for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that respondents 1
to 3 have no objection in the delay being condoned on condition that
the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of any relief for the
said period of 1,083 days.
3 We accept the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the
petitioner also is in agreement with the aforesaid submission.
4 In the event of the petitioner approaching a different
forum seeking appropriate relief, the delay of 1,083 days on his part
in approaching this Court, shall not be reckoned for the purpose of
calculating the period of limitation.
5 This C.M.P. is ordered in the above terms.”
(emphasis supplied)
5 In view of the above order passed in the petition filed to condone
the delay in filing this appeal, it is made clear that the appellants are not
entitled to the benefit of any relief for the period of delay of 1,083 days in they
preferring this writ appeal and further, in the event of they approaching a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
different forum seeking appropriate relief, the delay of 1,083 days on their part in
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
filing this appeal, shall not be reckoned while calculating the period of limitation.
In the result, this writ appeal stands allowed in terms of paragraph
nos.3 and 5, supra. Costs made easy.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
19.09.2023
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
To
1 The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002
2 The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002
3 The Superintending Engineer
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.
Cuddalore
4 The Inspector of Labour
Cuddalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR., J.
cad
W.A. No.2589 of 2023
19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
