Madras High Court
The Management vs K.Arumugam on 27 March, 2025
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. Nos.18039 & 18041 of 2020
and
W.M.P. Nos. 22399 & 22402of 2020
The Management,
Udumalpet Town Co-operative Store Ltd.,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Having office at No.K-879,
Marketing Soceity Compound,
Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Office,
Palladam Road, Udumalpet,
Tirupur District. ... Petitioner in both W.P.s
Versus
K.Arumugam,
S/o.Kandhasamy,
No.7/23, Palaniammal Layout,
Ramasamy Compound,
Dhali Road, Udumalpet,
Tirupur District. ... Respondent in both W.P.s
PRAYER in W.P.No.18039 of 2020:
To issue a Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated
16.09.2020 passed in I.A.No.1/2019 in C.P.No.66/2010 on the file of the
Labour Court, Coimbatore and quash the same and pass such further or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
1/10
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in W.P.No.18041 of 2020:
To issue a Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated
20.08.2013 passed in C.P.No.66/2010 on the file of the Labour Court,
Coimbatore and quash the same and pass such further or other order as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
COMMON PRAYER IN W.M.P.Nos.22399 & 22402 of 2020:
To grant an Ad-interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.45
of 2019 in C.P.No.66 of 2010 pending on the file of the Labour Court,
Coimbatore pending disposal of the above writ petition.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Raghunathan, Advocate for
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
For Respondent : Mr. S. Radha Ramanan, A. Ashok Kumar,
S. Sivalinga Kesavan, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, in
I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.P.No.66 of 2010, wherein the Labour Court
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner management seeking
condonation of delay of 1938 days in filing the petition to set aside the
ex-parte order dated 20.08.2013. The petitioner management has also
challenged the order passed in C.P.No.66 of 2010, whereby the Labour
Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,49,644/- to the
respondent without interest.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent was
working as an Accountant in the petitioner management and was
dismissed from service with effect from 01.06.1999. The respondent filed
an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in
TSEA No.10 of 1999, which was allowed on 30.06.2000, directing
reinstatement with back wages. Meanwhile, the petitioner management
initiated surcharge proceedings against the respondent, which was set
aside on appeal by the District Court, Coimbatore, on 11.07.2002. The
respondent was reinstated on 16.02.2007 but was not paid back wages,
leading him to file C.P.No.66 of 2010 before the Labour Court, seeking
computation of dues amounting to Rs.8,49,644/- with 18% interest per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
annum. The Labour Court allowed the claim petition ex-parte on
20.08.2013, directing the petitioner to pay the computed amount without
interest. Subsequently, the petitioner management filed I.A.No.1 of 2019
seeking condonation of delay of 1938 days to set aside the ex-parte
order, which was dismissed by the Labour Court on 16.09.2020.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petitions, along with W.M.P.Nos.22399 and 22402 of 2020, seeking a
stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.45 of 2019 in C.P.No.66 of 2010.
4. When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 11.12.2020, the
learned counsel for the petitioner management submitted that there were
official lapses in pursuing the matter in a timely manner. Consequently,
this Court adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner management to
initiate disciplinary action against the person responsible for the delay in
filing the appropriate petition.
5. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for hearing on
05.01.2021, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent, which was
duly served on 15.01.2021. Upon hearing the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner management, this Court passed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
interim order dated 20.09.2021, granting stay of the impugned order on
the condition that the petitioner management pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
to the respondent towards part satisfaction of the amount computed under
the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submitted that
the respondent joined duty on 16.02.2007 but went on medical leave
from 19.02.2007 to 11.08.2008, and later retired on 31.08.2008 upon
attaining superannuation.It was contended that, as per the principle of
“No Work, No Pay”, the respondent was not entitled to wages for the
period from 01.07.2002 to 15.02.2007, which was also conveyed to the
respondent on 29.01.2009, and the same was not challenged.The
respondent filed the computation petition only in 2010, two years after
superannuation, and the petition suffers from gross delay.The petitioner
contended that official lapses led to non-representation before the Labour
Court, resulting in the ex-parte order. The delay in filing the petition to
set aside the ex-parte order was neither wilful nor wanton, and the
Labour Court ought to have considered the sufficient cause shown.The
petitioner relied on decisions of this Court reported in 1996 SCC Online
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
Mad 1110 and 2013 SCC Online Mad 2317 to substantiate the contention
that official lapses should be condoned.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
reinstatement order was not properly implemented, and the respondent
had to make repeated representations to resume duty. After being
reinstated on 16.02.2007, the respondent worked for a short period and
went on medical leave, but retired on superannuation on 31.08.2008. The
learned counsel contended that the Labour Court had given ample
opportunity to the petitioner management, but they failed to appear, and
the ex-parte order in C.P.No.66 of 2010 was rightly passed. It was argued
that the enormous delay of 1938 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte
order was not satisfactorily explained, and the Labour Court rightly
rejected the condonation application in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Reliance was
placed on the decision in W.P.No.16121 of 2013 dated 28.02.2022,
where it was held that gross delay in challenging ex-parte orders should
not be condoned.
8. The right to claim dues does not extinguish merely by efflux of time.
Furthermore, the purpose of Section 33C(2) is to enable a workman to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
recover the money due to him from his employer and the Labour Court
acts as an executing court. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have
exercised its jurisdiction liberally, especially when the delay was
attributable to official lapses, as contended by the petitioner. Moreover,
as the computation petition itself is maintainable even when filed after a
considerable period, the condonation of delay in filing a petition to set
aside an ex-parte order should be viewed in a more liberal manner.
Dismissing the condonation petition on the ground of 1938 days of delay
is not justified when the substantive right to claim wages itself is not
barred by limitation.
9. However, the management’s failure to monitor the progress of the
case or pursue it diligently, despite being aware of the computation
petition, reflects a clear lack of due diligence on their part. Given these
circumstances, this Court is of the view that allowing the condonation
petition without imposing costs would set a bad precedent and would not
serve the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
impose costs on the petitioner management to compensate for the
inconvenience and prejudice caused to the respondent due to prolonged
litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.09.2020 passed
in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.P.No.66 of 2010 on the file of the Additional
Labour Court, Coimbatore is set aside and the delay of 1938 days is
condoned and the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 passed in C.P.No.66
of 2010 by the Labour Court, Coimbatore is set aside and the Labour
Court is directed to take up the matter on merits and dispose of the
computation petition in C.P.No.66/2010 expeditiously, in accordance
with law. The petitioner management shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the
respondent’s counsel who appeared in the Trial court within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed with the above
directions. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. Nos. 22399 & 22402 of
2020 are closed. No costs.
27.03.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
To
1.The Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
2.The Additional Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
W.P. Nos.18039 & 18041 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
W.P. Nos. 18039 & 18041 of 2020
and
W.M.P. Nos. 22399 & 22402of 2020
27.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 08:56:11 pm )
