Management v. S.Ashok Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:02.03.2026 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.Nos.6788, 6798, 6799, 7642, 7644 & 7648 of 2026 & W.M.P.Nos.7362, 7372, 7373, 8262, 8265 & 8269 of 2026 W.P.No.6788 of 2026 Management Zion High Secondary School, Indira Nagar, Selaiyur,, Chennai-600 073 ... Petitioner Vs S.Ashok Kumar ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the order dated 03.01.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in I.D.No.748 of 2018 on the file of the Labour Court Kancheepuram and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Abdullah (In all Petitions) C O M M O N O R D E R Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions being one and same, all the petitions are taken up for final disposal by way of a common order. 1/4
2. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the restoration petitions filed by the workmen.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respective respondents/workmen were the employees under the petitioner management and had raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Kancheepuram under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
194. The said dispute came to be dismissed for default on account of nonappearance of the respondents. After a lapse of considerable period of about two years, the respondents filed a petition for restoration under section 48(2) of the Act along with the petition to condone the delay of 720 days in filing restoration petition without assigning sufficient reasons for such inordinate delay. He further, submitted that the labour court, without assigning proper reasons, allowed the restoration petition which is wholly unsustainable. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
4. The issue involved in the present Writ Petitions has already been decided by this Court in W.P.Nos.6657 & 6689 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order as under:- 2/4
"5. It was the contention of the Workman that the case was pending for a long time and suddenly after the transfer of the case to Kanchipuram, since he could not appear on that particular occasion, the matter was dismissed for default. The reasons for not filing the application immediately and for seeking condonation of delay are set out in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.1 of 2024 and the same is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- "I further submit that in the above dispute, I was examined as W.W1 and I marked through myself Ex.W1 to W3. Thereafter the aforesaid dispute was posted for my cross examination on 29.11.2022.
Since I was illegal retrenchment and violation of under Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by the respondent management, I was facing so many health problems to earn my livelihood and I was not able to maintain my family also. I am struggling without employment and am in grave distress as I have a family to maintain and I am in non-employment. Thereafter, on 29.11.2022, I was not able to attend the court proceedings due to my ill-health and for the reasons aforesaid, and subject myself to cross examination. Hence, this reasons Hon'ble Court, instead of closing the evidence on my side unfortunately dismissed the dispute for default. Hence, the dispute has to set aside the exparte order and restored and I should be given a fair opportunity to prove my case.
If the dispute is restored, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, however, if the dispute is not restored, grave prejudice will be caused to me."
6. It is true that the Labour Court did not give elaborate reasons with reference to the said reasons of ill-health. However, in paragraphs 5 to 7, it has considered in detail as to what happened thus a in the Industrial Dispute and has also given its opinion that, under the said circumstances, the petition can be allowed on imposing heavy costs and consequently, the petition was allowed only on imposing costs. The second order was made to restore I.D.No.749 of 2018 for hearing. 3/4
M.DHANDAPANI, J Nhs 7.The learned counsel would further submit that the delay on the part of the Workman has also led to the losing of evidence. It can be seen that the matter was posted for trial. This is not a case where the valuable rights of the Workman to be closed without even deciding the same on merits. Since, the parties had already filed their claim statement and counter and the trial was proceeding. I see no prejudice to the petitioner Management merely because the delay is condoned and the petitioner, which was dismissed for default, was restored, especially considering the fact that the claim statement was of the year 2010 and the earlier proceedings by which the matter was pending for a long time.
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and finding no merits in the writ petitioner, these writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
5. In the light of the aforesaid decision, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Nhs W.P.Nos.6788, 6798, 6799, 7642, 7644 & 7648 of 2026 & W.M.P.Nos.7362, 7372, 7373, 8262, 8265 & 8269 of 2026 4/4