Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs L.Sukumaran ... Common on 4 November, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024
in
W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007. ... Common Petitioners/Appellants
-vs-
L.Sukumaran ... Common Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
Common Prayer: C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 are filed to condone the delay of
460 and 500 days in filing the above appeals against the common order dated
07.02.2023 made in W.P.Nos.42344 & 42345 of 2016.
Common Prayer: W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024 are filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent, seeking to allow the Writ Appeals and set aside the order dated
07.02.2023 made in W.P.Nos.42344 & 42345 of 2016.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukukmar
Addl. Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Chandrasekar
For Respondent : Mrs.Ganthimathi
For Mrs.S.Girija (Caveator)
*****
ORDER
(By D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.,)
These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to condone the delay
of 460 and 500 days in filing the above appeals against the common order dated
07.02.2023 made in W.P.Nos.42344 & 42345 of 2016.
2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned Additional
Advocate General for the petitioners submitted that the delay had occurred on account
fo various administrative reasons, which is not wilful and wanton and therefore, he
seeks to condone the delay in preferring Writ Appeals.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the petitioners, which
are not even convincing and unsustainable, as the affidavit to condone the delay itself is
bereft of particulars and the petitioners have not taken utmost care in drafting the
affidavit. The Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, namely, N.Balakrishnan V.
M.Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, H.Dohil Constructions Company Private
Limited vs Nahar Exports Limited and another reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 680, held that even if the delay is long, the delay can be condoned, provided it is
supported by sufficient reasons and justifications to exercise the discretion of the Court.
It is well-settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of
the court. What the court has to consider is not the length of delay, but the acceptability
of the explanation. In the case on hand, no valid or cogent reasons, are assigned to
condone the delay.
4. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General has produced a
memo dated 04.11.2024 filed by the petitioners/appellants, agreeing to offer alternative
light employment to the respondent and also to pay 30% of back wages in compliance
of the order passed by the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out
that the respondent is willing to accept the offer in order to give quietus to the issue.
5. The gist of the settlement in terms of the memo dated 04.11.2024 is
extracted hereunder:
“(i) The Appellant to provide alternative light duty to the
Respondent, as proposed by them with in such period as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
(ii) Scale of pay of the Respondent may be fixed on par with
similarly placed employees.
(iii) Continuity of service with all attendant benefits may be granted
reckoning from the date of dismissa.
(iv) Appellant to grant and pay 30% of the Back Wages to the
Respondent, as proposed by them, which the Respondent accepts.
(v) The Respondent agrees to allow the Appellant to deduct such
amounts that has to be paid by him towards his share under the
contributory pension scheme, reckoning the date of dismissal, from the
amount of 30% of the Back wages, proposed to be paid by the appellant.
Further the Appellant shall pay their equivalent share to the contributory
pension scheme of the Respondent, continue to pay the same monthly
during the course of employment of the Respondent.
(vi) This compromise memo may not be taken as a preceding's for
other cases.”
6. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, we direct the
petitioners/appellants to comply with the terms of the memo extracted supra in letter
and spirit within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
order.
7. In the result, C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 are dismissed.
Consequently, W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024 are disposed of at the SR stage
itself. No costs.
[D.K.K., J.,] [P.B.B.,J.,]
04.11.2024
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ar
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in
W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.,
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.,
ar
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in
W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.Nos.17367 & 17370 of 2024 in W.A.SR.Nos.102572 & 104563 of 2024
04.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
