Dismissed¶41

Thavamani. T v. The Management

Madras HC1 Jul 2026WP(MD)/25133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; writ of mandamus; Article 226 cannot enlarge statutory limitation; Section 2-A(3) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 three-year limit from dismissal/termination; no condonation power in Labour Court or Tribunal; individual workman direct application; F.O.P. No.100 of 2019; Labour Court Madurai; dismissal order 16.03.1999 unauthorised absence; conciliation failure report 16.11.2012 Section 12(4); Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Virudhunagar; T.Thavamani Conductor; W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022; writ petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

An application under Section 2-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be presented within three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service. ¶35

Thavamani. T Vs The Management — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's proposed application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is barred by the three-year limit in Section 2-A(3), and whether the Labour Court or Tribunal has any power to condone delay beyond that period. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

An application under Section 2-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be presented within three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Section 2-A(3) does not confer any power upon the Labour Court or the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the prescribed three-year period.

¶35

Key takeaways

Where the statute itself prescribes a period of limitation without any discretion to condone delay, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction contrary to the statutory mandate or enlarge the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.ratio¶36
A direction to the Labour Court to entertain an industrial dispute which is admittedly barred by limitation cannot be issued by this Court.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single judge (M.Dhandapani, J., author), 01.07.2026, W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022 - dismissed, no order as to costs. T.Thavamani, a Conductor of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Virudhunagar Region) dismissed by order dated 16.03.1999 for unauthorised absence, whose conciliation before the Labour Officer, Virudhunagar ended in a Section 12(4) failure report dated 16.11.2012, sought a writ of mandamus directing that his proposed F.O.P. No.100 of 2019 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai be received with condonation of delay. The Court held, reading Section 2-A(3), that such applications must be made within three years of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and that neither Labour Court nor Tribunal has power to condone delay beyond that period; further, Article 226 jurisdiction cannot issue directions contrary to statutory mandate or enlarge prescribed limitation. The admittedly time-barred dispute therefore could not be directed to be entertained, and the petition was dismissed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶7

T.Thavamani

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Virudhunagar Region, Bye-Pass Road, Virudhunagar.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to file the petition (F:OP/100/2019-CNR:TNMP04000.02.2019) under Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Madurai, within the stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramaiah

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of

¶15

mandamus directing the respondent to receive and entertain the petition in

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶19

F.O.P. No.100 of 2019 (CNR No.TNMP040000022019), proposed to be filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, by condoning the delay and to dispose of the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1987. His services were confirmed in the year 1993 and he was subsequently promoted as a Senior Conductor. While so, he was dismissed from service by order dated 16.03.1999 on the ground that he had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 14.05.1998 for more than ten days.

¶21

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was unable to challenge the order of dismissal immediately on account of his medical condition. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Officer, Virudhunagar, seeking conciliation. Since the conciliation proceedings ended in failure, the Labour Officer submitted a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 16.11.2012. According to the petitioner, despite making several representations to the higher authorities of the respondent Corporation seeking reinstatement, no favourable orders were passed. Owing to the prolonged delay

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶25

caused by the said circumstances, the petitioner could not raise an industrial dispute within the prescribed period. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Labour Court to entertain the dispute notwithstanding the delay.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, by virtue of the amendment introduced to Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with effect from 15.09.2010, an individual workman is required to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service. The statute does not confer any power upon the Labour Court to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶27

This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 16.03.1999. Even according to the petitioner, the conciliation proceedings culminated in a failure report on 16.11.2012. However, the petitioner has

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶32

approached this Court only after an inordinate lapse of time seeking a direction to the Labour Court to entertain his dispute.

¶33

Section 2-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows:

¶34

"The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."

¶35

A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that an application under Section 2-A(3) must be presented within three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service. The provision does not confer any power upon the Labour Court or the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period.

¶36

When the statute itself prescribes a period of limitation and does not provide any discretion to condone the delay, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction contrary to the statutory mandate or enlarge the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶40

In the present case, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Labour Court to entertain an industrial dispute which is admittedly barred by limitation. Such a direction cannot be issued by this Court.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

01.07.2026

¶43

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG To The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Virudhunagar Region, Bye-Pass Road, Virudhunagar.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022

¶47

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶48

TSG

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.25133 of 2022