Madras High Court
The Management Of vs M.Vijayakumar (Deceased) on 5 January, 2024
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1/7 W.A.No.198/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 05-01-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.198 of 2024
The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Zone,
Ponnerikarai,
Bangalore – Chennai National Highway,
Kanchipuram District – 631 552. ... Appellant
-vs-
M.Vijayakumar (deceased)
1.R.Shyamala
2.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
Teynampet, Chennai. ... Respondents
Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated
22.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.4840 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7 W.A.No.198/2024
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 22.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.4840 of 2023, confirming the order of the
Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, rejecting the approval petition filed by
the appellant management, on the ground of laches.
2. Respondent, who was an Assistant Engineer under the appellant
management, was dismissed from service on 01.02.2011, for continuous absence from
duty. Following that, the appellant management filed an approval petition before the
Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The said petition was dismissed by
the Authority on the ground of laches. Aggrieved over the said order of dismissal, the
management preferred the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed by the learned
single Judge, confirming the order of the Authority. The learned single Judge referred to
various decisions of the Supreme Court and also this Court while dismissing the Writ
Petition.
3. The Supreme Court, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 1994
SCC, Supl.(2) 195, has held as follows :
''8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of laches on his
part, no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner no other person's rights are going to be affected. He also
cited certain decisions to that effect. This plea ignores the fact that the
said consideration is only one of the considerations which the court will
take into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from
laches. It is not the only consideration. It is a well-settled policy of law
that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not
sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act
and other rules of limitation. If they choose to sleep over their rights and
remedies for an inordinately long time, the court may well choose to
decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India and that is what precisely the Delhi-High Court has
none. We cannot say that the High Court was not entitled to say so in its
discretion.''
4. A Division Bench of this Court, in S.Vaidhyanathan v. Government of
Tamil Nadu, 2018 SCC OnLine, in para 14, held as under ;
“14. There is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the
appellant. What is latches is as follows:
“Laches or reasonable time are not defined under any statute or
Rules. “Latches” or “Lashes” is an old french word for slackness or
negligence or not doing. In general sense, it means neglect to do what in
the law should have been done for an unreasonable or unexplained length
of time. What could be the latches in one case might not constitute in
another. The latches to non-suit, an aggrieved person from challenging
the acquisition proceedings should be inferred from the conduct of the
land owner or an interested person and that there should be a passive
inaction for a reasonable length of time. What is reasonable time has not
been explained in any of the enactment. Reasonable time depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.” ......
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In para 16 of the judgment cited supra, it is held as under;
''16. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the
remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches results in benefit of discretionary
power being denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting
into depriving of the remedy, is a principle based on public policy and
utility and not equity alone...............”
5. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322,
the Supreme Court, in Paragraph 6, held as follows:
“6. Delay or latches is one of the factors which is to be borne in
mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High
Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such
negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as
taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,
causes prejudice to the opposite party''.....
16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight
of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not
agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not
claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity.
They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by
the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982,
those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-
off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they
are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not
be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time
Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction.
6. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.
T.T.Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, in Paragraphs 16 and 17, the Supreme Court held
as follows :
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered
and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it
is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that
when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the
court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the
litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity
and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the
basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
doesbring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”
7. In the instant case, the Approval Petition was rejected by the Authority
under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, on 26.07.2018, whereas, the Writ Petition was
filed by the management only in the year 2023, after a lapse of over five-and-a-half
years, challenging the order of the Authority, dated 26.07.2018, and there was no
explanation in the affidavit for the inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petition.
Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in dismising the Writ Petition on the
ground of laches. That apart, the management had not filed the approval petition in time
and there was delay of 11 months in presenting the same to the Authority, for which
also, there was no proper explanation. On that score also, the management has no case.
8. Writ Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected C.M.P.No.1161 of 2024 is closed.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 05-01-2024
dixit
(2/2)
To
The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Teynampet, Chennai.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
dixit
05-01-2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
