Petitioner challenged an order dismissing her terminal benefit claim due to a 5-year delay and lack of clean hands. The High Court held that since the Labour Court refused to condone the delay, examining the merits was unwarranted, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 12.04.2022 Pronounced on : 09.06.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. No.24060 of 2011 and W.M.P.No.1 of 2011
R.Jagannathan ...Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent viz., Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District, made in I.D.No.359 of 1998, dated 28.05.2002 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to grant the reliefs of (i) backwages (ii) continuity of service and (iii) other attendant benefit to the petitioner as per law.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Harshavardhini for M/s.Madhura G.Ramesh For R1 : Ms.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.V.Kamaraj for L.D.Shanmuga Sundaram
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court in I.D.359 of 1988 dated 28.05.2002 to quash the same and to grant the relief of back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
a) The petitioner had approached the Labour Court almost 5 years after the order of termination dated 10.03.1993, as the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1998 and as conciliation failed the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, thereafter.
b) It was also found that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, inasmuch as while the petitioner has pleaded that order of termination had been made without complying with principles of natural justice and in gross disregard to the procedures contemplated and that neither charge memo was drawn nor any enquiry conducted. However, on a perusal of the exhibits the tribunal found that the charges were in fact framed and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal thus found that the submissions of the petitioner that no charge memo was issued nor any enquiry made is clearly contrary to the facts and false. The Labour Court held that the petitioner having not come with clean hands the petitioner does not deserve any leniency while examining the request to condone the delay of 5 years, in making a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently in approaching the Labour Court. The Labour Court/ Tribunal thus proceeded to hold that the petition ought to be rejected. Having held so the tribunal also proceeded to examine the matter on merit and found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges vide its order dated 28.05.2022.
Court to examine the merits of the matter, since the need to examine the matters on merits would arise only if the delay had been condoned, which the Tribunal refused to. Having refused to condone the delay, the Tribunal need not / rather ought not have proceeded to examine the matter on merits. It is well settled that in matters involving exercise of discretion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be appropriate unless and until it is shown that the exercise of discretion suffers from manifest arbitrariness/ patent illegality which is not the case here. As a matter of fact the petitioner has not explained the delay in challenging the order of termination even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Psa
To :
W.P. No.24060 of 2011
GPL[co]
NSK/21/06/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's discretion to condone a 5-year delay in approaching the forum.
Whether the High Court should examine the merits of the termination dispute when the petition for condonation of delay is rejected.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Jagannathan
The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Cheyyar Range
The VL SPL 90, Mangal Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mangal Primary Agricultural Cheyyar Taluk
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
