Dismissed¶42

Visakh Homes Limited v. the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-Ii

Madras HC24 Mar 2026WA/1598/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 1175 days; Section 41 Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947; statutory appeal by dismissed workman; writ appeal dismissed; record sufficient reasons when condoning long delay; ex parte order set aside; appeal taken on file; all issues left open; adjudication on merits before competent authority; Visakh Homes Limited; Davis T P; Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-II; W.A.No.1598 of 2025; C.M.P.No.11969 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Madras; 24.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and there was no order as to costs. ¶42

Visakh Homes Limited Vs the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-Ii — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and there was no order as to costs.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order condoning the enormous delay of 1175 days in filing the second respondent's statutory appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, could stand when no reasons were stated for the condonation. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

While passing an order condoning long delay, the competent authority is expected to record reasons so as to avoid unnecessary grounds being raised between the parties; hereinafter, the authority shall ensure that orders condoning long delay are passed by recording sufficient reasons.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the absence of recorded reasons, the condonation of delay in the present case was upheld because the workman was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal ought to be adjudicated by affording both parties an opportunity to establish their respective cases before the competent authority under the statutory appeal mechanism.

¶36

Key takeaways

Since the ex parte order has been set aside and the statutory appeal taken on file, the parties are at liberty to adjudicate the dispute before the competent authority; all issues are left open and the authority shall decide them independently and uninfluenced by any findings made by this Court.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HC (DB) - W.A.No.1598 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.11969 of 2025 (Visakh Homes Limited v. Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-II and Another), decided 24.03.2026 by S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender, JJ.: Management's writ appeal against the single Judge's dismissal of its challenge to the condonation of a 1175-day delay in the dismissed workman's statutory appeal under Section 41, Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, stands dismissed. Court observes that an authority condoning long delay is expected to record sufficient reasons (directive going forward), but upholds the condonation here because the dismissal must be adjudicated affording both sides an opportunity; notes the ex parte order has been set aside and the appeal taken on file; all substantive issues left open, to be decided independently and uninfluenced by this Court's findings; no costs.

¶1

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶8

W.A.No.1598 of 2025 and

¶9

C.M.P.No.11969 of 2025

¶10

Visakh Homes Limited 8 Veekay Manor Flat No.4G Ground Floor Gopalakrishna Road T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 Rep. By its Director S.Padma Kumar ... Appellant

¶11

vs.

¶12

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-II (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act) and The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages) Office of the Commissioner of Labour Commissioner of Labour Office Building, 4^th Floor Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶13

Davis T P Asian MMDA Park 27/5 Vinayapuram First Street MMDA Colony Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106. … Respondents

¶14

Page Nos.1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶17

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2025.

¶18

For Appellant	:	Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co
For Respondents	:	Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader for R1
		Mr.T.Sellapandian, for R2

¶19

*********

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

[Judgment of the Court was made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]

¶22

The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2025.

¶23

The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the

¶24

order passed by the Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, in a petition to condone the delay of 1175 days in filing the statutory appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops ans Establishments Act, 1947 [hereinafter “said Act” for the sake of brevity] by the second respondent.

¶25

Page Nos.2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶28

The second respondent was an employee of the appellant company and he was dismissed from service. The second respondent filed an appeal under Section 41 of the said Act along with a condone delay petition seeking to condone a delay of 1175 days. Since the condone delay petition was allowed, the Management preferred the present writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and challenging the same, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed.

¶29

Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would mainly contend that no reasons are stated for condoning the enormous delay of 1175 days. Since the delay was condoned without considering the reasons which must be valid in accordance with law, the Management has chosen to file the writ petition and the present writ appeal.

¶30

Under normal circumstances, to condone such an enormous delay, reasons have to be stated.

¶31

The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that, having been satisfied with the reasons stated in the petition seeking condonation of delay, the competent authority condoned the delay. That apart, this is an appeal filed by the workman and the issues are sought to be decided on merits and in the interest of the workman.

¶32

Page Nos.3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶35

This Court is of the considered view that the competent authority, based on the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, passed an order. However, while passing such an order condoning the long delay, the authority is expected to record reasons so as to avoid any such unnecessary grounds being raised between the parties. The acceptability of the reasons for condoning the delay is the basis for the order passed condoning the delay and thus, hereinafter, the authority shall ensure that orders condoning long delay are passed by recording sufficient reasons.

¶36

However, in the present case, we have considered the fact that the workman was dismissed from service and an order of dismissal ought to be adjudicated by affording opportunity to the parties to establish their respective cases before the competent authority, more so, it is a statutory appeal contemplated under the said Act.

¶37

Mr.T.Sellapandian, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the second respondent at the request of the Court, would submit that the grounds raised on merits deserves to be adjudicated before the competent authority based on evidence and documents and an opportunity is to be provided to the second respondent to establish his case in the manner known to law.

¶38

Page Nos.4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶41

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the ex parte order passed by the competent authority was set aside and the appeal has been taken on file for adjudication. The parties are at liberty to adjudicate the dispute before the competent authority under the said Act in the manner known to law. All the issues are left open and the authority shall decide the issues independently and uninfluenced by any findings made by this Court.

¶42

With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 24.03.2026

¶44

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order

¶45

¶46

To The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour-II (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act) and The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages) Office of the Commissioner of Labour Commissioner of Labour Office Building, 4^th Floor Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶47

Page Nos.5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶50

S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and K. SURENDER, J.,

¶51

¶52

W.A.No.1598 of 2025

¶53