Dismissed¶30

The Management v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC9 Apr 2025WA(MD)/911/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 1204 days delay; restoration petition; writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; writ appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent; Labour Court Madurai reinstatement of conductor without backwages with continuity of service; fare/ticket irregularity; lethargic attitude; no satisfactory explanation for delay; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy JJ.; W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025; 09.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No satisfactory reason was assigned to condone the inordinate delay of 1204 days, which clearly exhibited a lethargic attitude on the part of the appellant. ¶30

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Court rightly dismissed W.M.P.(MD)No.21168 of 2019 seeking condonation of the 1204 days' delay in filing the restoration petition to restore W.P.(MD)No.9094 of 2008, given the absence of explanation for the delay after the date of knowledge. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

No satisfactory reason was assigned to condone the inordinate delay of 1204 days, which clearly exhibited a lethargic attitude on the part of the appellant.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Court rightly dismissed the delay condonation petition and the Division Bench was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ appeal.

¶30

Key takeaways

Even on the merits of the underlying matter, the appellant was found to have no case.ratio¶30
The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.5908 of 2025) was closed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 09.04.2025) by the Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.11.2019 in W.M.P.(MD)No.21168 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.9094 of 2008, whereby the Writ Court refused to condone a delay of 1204 days in filing a restoration petition to revive the writ petition (which had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had challenged a Labour Court, Madurai order reinstating a dismissed Conductor, D.Ramadhass, without backwages but with continuity of service, following an alleged fare/ticket irregularity). Held: no satisfactory reason was assigned to condone the inordinate delay, which exhibited a lethargic attitude on the appellant's part; the Writ Court rightly dismissed the delay petition; even on merits the appellant has no case. Writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.5908 of 2025 closed. Bench: Mrs.Justice J.Nisha Banu (author) and Mrs.Justice S.Srimathy.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶8

W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025 & C.M.P.(MD)No.5908 of 2025

¶9

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, Bye-Pass Road, Collectorate P.O., Dindigul-624 004.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.

¶13

2.D.Ramadhass

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 26.11.2019 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.21168 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.9094 of 2008 on the file of this Court.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R1 : Court For R2 : Mr.S.Govindan

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU , J.]

¶22

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2019 made in W.M.P.(MD)No.21168 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.9094 of 2008.

¶23

2.It is the case of the appellant / writ petitioner that while the 2^nd respondent was working as Conductor in a bus, though he had collected full fair of Rs.18/- from two passengers, he issued tickets to the said passengers by entering Rs.9/- to each of them. However, in the counter foil, he had written as if he issued tickets for the value of Rs.6/- each. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, he filed a petition before the 1^st respondent and the same was allowed, directing the appellant to reinstate the 2^nd respondent without backwages but with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the said Writ Petition. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the Writ Court dismissed the said Writ Petition for non-prosecution.

¶24

3.Since there was a delay of 1204 days in filing restoration petition to restore the said Writ Petition, the appellant has filed W.M.P.(MD)No.21168 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025

¶28

4.The Writ Court, vide order dated 26.11.2019, dismissed the said petition, stating that though the appellant had knowledge about the dismissal of the Writ Petition on 17.02.2017, there was no explanation for the delay after the date of knowledge. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.

¶29

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record carefully.

¶30

6.On perusal of the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, we are of the view that no satisfactory reason is assigned to condone the inordinate delay of 1204 days, which would clearly exhibit lethargic attitude on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the delay petition and even on merits, the appellant has no case. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

[J.N.B., J.] & [S.S.Y., J.] 09.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Yuva

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.911 of 2025

¶35

J.NISHA BANU, J. AND S.SRIMATHY , J.

¶36

Yuva