Dismissed¶137

The Chairman cum Managing v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC3 Apr 2025WP/1309/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.; National Thermal Power Corporation; Power Grid National Workers Union (SR); five day week; six day week; working-hours discrimination; Article 14; delay and laches; stale claim; continuing wrong; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; industrial dispute; settlement talks 1989; Memorandum of Conclusion 1985; minority union; prospective relief from 20.04.2007; Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai; I.D. No.23 of 2009; writ of certiorari; award dated 10.10.2014 confirmed; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; award dated 10.10.2014 in I.D. No.23 of 2009 confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs. ¶137

The Chairman cum Managing Vs The Presiding Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; award dated 10.10.2014 in I.D. No.23 of 2009 confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

¶137

Issue for consideration

Whether the industrial dispute, raised nearly 22 years after the circular dated 2.8.1985 and after intervening settlements, is barred by delay/laches as a stale claim (petitioner invoking Union of India v. Tarsem Singh). +4 more

¶44

Court's answer

The Tarsem Singh requirement of satisfactorily explaining delay governs individual service claims; the present case is a labour dispute whose benefit devolves upon all members of the labour, not a specific service claim of an individual, so that bar does not apply.

¶124

Ratio / Principle

Delay, though ordinarily fatal unless explained, cannot on all occasions be used to defeat the rights of labour; issues not resolved in one settlement get carried forward and become continuing issues which can be taken up later.

¶119

Key takeaways

Even according to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the union which raised the dispute is a minority union that would not have been called to the bipartite settlement talks; hence its failure to press the grievance at the settlements cannot be laid at its door.ratio¶103
The issue was raised during the 1989 settlement and rejected; merely because an issue has been raised and rejected does not mean it stood concluded, was left out, or that the union had closed the issue from further agitation.ratio¶114
Where a delayed group grievance concerns an administrative decision affecting the workforce as a whole, the delay cannot be turned against the entire workforce; so long as the claim does not affect the rights of other labour or third parties, there is no impediment to reopening the issue and agitating the claim.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) dismisses W.P. No.1309 of 2015 (Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.) challenging the award dated 10.10.2014 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No.23 of 2009, which directed POWERGRID to pay workmen (members of Power Grid National Workers Union (SR)) transferred to NTPC proportionate pay for extra days worked under a 6-day week at sites/projects, while Corporate/Regional Offices enjoyed a 5-day week from the circular dated 2.8.1985. Held: (i) the 22-year delay does not defeat the claim — Tarsem Singh's rule that a belated service claim must carry a satisfactory explanation of delay applies to individual service claims, whereas this is a labour dispute whose benefit devolves on the workforce; unresolved demands constitute a continuing wrong; the issue was in fact raised at the 1989 settlement and rejected, not concluded; and the disputing minority union could not have been called to bipartite talks; (ii) since service conditions otherwise remained unaltered and both classes historically shared identical scales of pay and the 6-day week, giving one identically placed class a 5-day week without reasons or extra remuneration is a clear violation of Article 14 and cannot stand; the dispute impairs no third-party or other-labour rights, so reopening is unobjectionable; (iii) relief was properly confined prospectively from 20.04.2007, balancing both sides' interests. The impugned order is free of perversity or arbitrariness and is confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.