The Managing Director v. The Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.11.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.30374 of 2017 Management, C.K.Sons Shoes, 71/D 1/A Vaniyampadi Road, Thirupattur-635 601.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court (now the Principal Labour Court), Vellore, Vellore District.

2.The Presiding Officer, The Additional Labour Court, Vellore, Vellore District.

3.S.Vali, 7/4, Kasi Chettiar Street, Krishnan Kovil residence, Ambur-635 802.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order made in C.P.No.95 of 2006 dated 23.01.2009 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential order made in E.P.No.25 of 2012 in C.P.No.95 of 2006, dated 29.07.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,340/- (Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Forty Only) to the petitioner's company.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mutharasu For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl GP(for R1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, with a huge delay of eight years, by the petitioner/Management, seeking to the quash the impugned orders in C.P.No.95 of 2006, dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Vellore, in and by which the petitioner/management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,340/- to the 3rd respondent herein.

2.In view of the huge and unexplained delay of eight long years, the writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner is held guilt of laches.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management submitted that a false claim has been made by the 3rd respondent and this has been wrongly allowed by the 1st respondent. If that is so, it is not known why the petitioner has gone out of the picture for a long period of eight years. When the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent on 23.01.2009, the petitioner has not properly explained the huge delay of eight years, in challenging the said order.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssv To, +1cc to Mr.G.Muthuarasu, Advocate, S.R.No.84402 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.84202 W.P.No.30374 of 2017 LRS(CO) RRK(18/12/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/