Madras High Court
The Management vs / on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.M.P.(MD)No.5584 of 2024
in
W.A.(MD)SR No.25993 of 2024
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
Marudhapathi,
Karaikudi,
Rep. By its Manager. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
2. E.Ramanathan ... Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.5584 of 2024:- Petition - filed under Section
5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 463 days in filing the writ
appeal.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
PRAYER in W.A.(MD)SR No.25993 of 2024:- Appeal - filed under
Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in WP(MD)No.
21331 of 2014 dated 21.11.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Court (R1)
No appearance (R2)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
This petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
463 days in filing the writ appeal.
2. R1 is Tribunal and service is complete on R2 and
description is printed in the cause list.
3. We are entirely dissatisfied with the reasons adduced in the
petition filed originally, as the affidavit had cursorily stated that the
matter had been placed before the Board and thereafter, an opinion had
been obtained from the petitioner's counsel. A supplementary affidavit
has now been filed by the petitioner, which also does not persuade us.
Para 5 of the affidavit dated 16.09.2025 reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
“5. I state that the condone delay petition in
C.M.P (MD) No.5584 of 2024 in W.A SR (MD) No. 25993 of
2024 to condone the delay 454 days in filing the Appeal was
listed on 08-09-2025, as the reasons stated was not
satisfactory, I am filing this better affidavit. I most
respectfully submit that orders are passed in W.P (MD) No.
21331 of 2024 on 21-11-2022. The original order copy was
misplaced, so CD was applied on 21-09-2023, and the copy
of the order was received on 22.09.2023. The said order was
placed before the board on 06.12.2023, after obtaining the
opinion from the panel Advocate. The said case was
originally dealt by Mr.Muruganandam, Senior
Superintendent who was suffered by Cancer and was under
going treatment, so the files are handed over to
Mr.Rajmurugan, Superintendent, who thereafter proceeded
with the files. The papers are handled over to the counsel on
09.12.2023, the files are prepared and put up for signature
on 26.03.2024. In the meantime the typed set pertaining to
the writ petition was misplaced due to change of Advocate.
After tracing the same present appeal is filed on 28.03.2024
with a delay of 454 days. The delay is neither willful nor
wanton but due to the unavoidable circumstances stated
above.”
4. On perusal of the same, we find no justification made out
for the delay, as the only reason stated is administrative. The sequence of
events that have been set out in paragraph 5, above only serve to
illustrate the careless and casual manner in which the file has been dealt
with by the authorities, involving delay at every stage.
5. In the case of Postmaster General and others V. Living
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
Media India Limited and another, the Supreme Court has considered the
ambit of the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ in the context of condonation of
delay.
6. Taking note of the judgments in the cases of CWT V.
Amateur Riders Club and Pundlik Jalam Patil V. Jalgaon Medium
Project, the Court at paragraph 28, holds that even when there was no
gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides where a liberal
concession on delay may be adopted to advance the substantial cause of
justice, the Postmaster General had cited only bureaucratic delays, which
cannot be accepted. They state ‘the claim on account of impersonal
machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used
and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody,
including the Government’.
7. The observations and conclusions at paragraph 29 are on
point, and read as follows:
“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all
the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation
for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to considerable degree
of procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that
they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent case in School
Education Department & Others vs. Sarita Mishra & Another (Special
Leave Petition (civil) Diary No(s). 24926/2023, dated 28.11.2023) has
dismissed a petition seeking condonation of 283 days delay with costs,
holding as follows:-
“The special leave petition has been filed with a
delay of 283 days in filing and 121 days in refiling the
special leave petition against an order dismissing a Writ
Appeal filed after delay of 994 days: so much for the
efficiency of the department!
We have categorized all such cases as “certificate
cases”. The objective is to see that the department washes its
hands off for its non performance to obtain dismissal from
this Court.
We fail to appreciate such a scenario. In this
behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.
9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha
& Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.
22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was
given to the Government/public authorities on account of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this
Court which came at a time when technology had not
advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This
position is no more prevalent and the current legal position
has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office
of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media
India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563.
Looking to the delay not only before the High
Court and further delay before us, we dismiss the special
leave petition as time barred with a costs of Rs. 10,000/- to
be deposited with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-
Clerical) Employees Welfare Association.”
9. In the light of the above, we find no justification for the
delay of 463 days, and hence, this miscellaneous petition seeking
condonation of delay of 463 days in filing the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed in SR stage.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
07.10.2025
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
To
1. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
sm
Order made in
in
Dated:
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
