Dismissed¶¶37

K.Saravanan, v. Indian Overseas Bank

Madras HC3 Mar 2025WP/17520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (W.P. No. 17520 of 2018, Madras High Court, 03.03.2025, R.N. Manjula J.) — maintainability of Article 226 writ vs alternative remedy of industrial dispute; 'Workman' under Industrial Disputes Act, 1956; Sections 2A(2) and 2A(3) limitation; delay and laches; termination of bank Messenger without show cause or enquiry; alleged appointment on false declaration/bogus documents; Branch Manager's false certificate under union pressure; reinstatement sought from Indian Overseas Bank; comparable industrial disputes including Balaji's I.D. No.41 of 2014 (Labour Court, Chennai) dismissed; certiorarified mandamus; outcome: writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not maintainable, having been filed to escape the mandates of limitation without assigning any reasons for the delay and laches.

K.Saravanan, Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶7

K.Saravanan … Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by General Manager Central Office-Post Box No.3765 Industrial Relation Department 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002. 2.Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by Chief Manager Regional Office Verasamy Nagar Sankkaranpalayam Vellore – 632001.

¶10

3.The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank 479, 1^st Floor, Bangalore Highway Nazarathpet – 602103. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 12.05.2014 in No.IRD/184/49/2014-15 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents for reinstating the petitioner with all attending benefits.

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Krishnakumar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to call for the records of the first respondent dated 12.05.2014 in No. IRD/184/49/2014-15 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the service with all attendant benefits.

¶18

2. Heard Mr.N.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Messenger on 23.12.2011. After six months his services were confirmed on 27.06.2012. All of a sudden, he was terminated on 12.05.2014 without even issuing any show cause or conducting any enquiry.

¶20

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

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner will fall under the definition of 'Workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1956. Without resorting to the recourse of raising industrial dispute by alleging that he was legally terminated, he has chosen to file the writ petition.

¶24

5. It is submitted that as per Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, any application under Section 2A(2) has to be made within a period of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. The petitioner has not filed any industrial disputes till the expiry of three years from the date of his termination. Even the writ petition has been filed after a period of four years with delay and laches.

¶25

6. It is learnt that the petitioner and others have involved in a large scam with huge bribe was transacted by the office bearers of the trade union for induction of the ineligible candidates in the absorption process for the post of Messengers /Sweepers under permanent vacancies. Persons similar to the petitioners who have terminated from the service have filed industrial disputes and their industrial disputes have been dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶29

7. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been appointed through a regular selection process and then Branch Manager of Thirupattur has issued a false certificate stating that he was working in the Bank from April 2007 to 15.04.2011 as a temporary Messenger.

¶30

8. During enquiry the Branch Manager has stated that he has issued a false certificate under the pressure from the union. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner was made on false declaration and by furnishing bogus documents. The person who had chosen the above channel has been terminated without notice. One such industrial dispute filed by one Balaji in Industrial Dispute No.41 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Chennai was dismissed on the observation that during the relevant point of time, the person was not in the services of the bank, but was working elsewhere. The petitioner could have filed an industrial dispute after his termination to establish that the certificate produced by him was very much true and that he stands out from those persons who have been terminated on the similar allegations. The petitioners conduct of keeping silence for four years would only show that the petitioner has accepted the termination and he did not opt to challenge it before the Labour Court.

¶31

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

¶32

4/6

¶33

W.P. No. 17520 of 2018

¶34

9. Under such circumstances, the writ petition cannot be filed just in order

¶35

to escape from the mandates of limitation and without assigning any reasons as

¶36

to the delay and laches. As the writ petition itself is not maintainable, I feel it is liable to be dismissed.