The Management, v. Thavasimuthu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.25896 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 The Management Vasambadi Estate Yercaud - 636 601 Rep.by LRMK Valiappan Receiver, Vasambadi Estate ... Petitioner Vs 1 Thavasimuthu 2 M.Raja 3 P.Palanisamy 4 V.Poochi 5 P.Venkatachalam 6 K.Kandasamy 7 Kuzhanthaisamy 8 Mariammal 9 Maathammal 10 Saroja 11 Elisa 12 Chinna 13 Kamalam 14 Palaniammal 15 K.Unnamalai 16 Pappathi 17 Periamallika 18 P.Selvi 19 Muniammal 20 Pushpam 21 Thaymmal 22 Kumari 23 Nagammal 24 Thangammal 25 Regina 26 P.Pappa 27 R.Lakshmi 28 M.Chitra 29 Priya 30 Dhanabakkiam
31 Anbuvalli 32 Murugayee 33 Kasi. Maathammal 34 Manjula 35 P.Maniammal 36 Kodi. Bakkiam 37 P.Maathammal 38 Aath. Karutha 39 Pali. Muthumani 40 Amaravathi 41 Muluvi. Valli 42 V.Vasantha 43 Santhavalli 44 Suseela 45 A.Dhanam 46 P.Kuppayee 47 M.Deivanai 48 P.Rani 49 A.Vasantha 50 P.Poongodi 51 K.Palaniammal 52 Malar 53 Santha 54 Pali.Revathi 55 Seng. Krishnaveni 56 P.M.Poongodi 57 Kalaimani 58 Banumathi 59 Malaichi 60 K.Annamalaichi 61 C.Dhanabakkiam 62 K.Kanga 63 P.Lalitha 64 Chennammal 65 Dhanabakkiam 66 Saroja 67 Pali.Vellain 68 Jeyachandran 69 Kandasamy 70 Seng.Palani 71 K.Mathesh 72 Periyagoundan 73 Periyakuppan 74 Bakkiaraj 75 Kathiresan 76 K.Rajaram 77 K.Kuppusamy 78 P.Raman 79 Siva 80 Pali.Sundaram 81 Kodi.Lakshmi
82 K.Palaniammal 83 K.Saroja 84 P.Parvathi 85 P.Lakshmi 86 A.Vellachi 87 K.Jothi 88 M.Lakshmi 89 Kasi. Vellaiammal 90 Sakunthala 91 Puthu. Vellaichi 92 P.Vijaya 93 M.Mallika 94 Mysore. Kamalam 95 P.Manichi 96 A.Mathammal 97 K.Unnamalai 98 Mangalam. Vasantha 99 Pali. Pachayee 100 A.Chinthamani 101 P.Geetha 102 A.Vellachi 103 Seng. Vellaiammal 104 Vazha. Chinna 105 A.Valli 106 Mani. Palaniammal 107 P.Alamelu 108 P.Chandra 109 Pili. Valli 110 Seng. Sakthi 111 P.Pappu 112 Seng. Mathammal 113 Pali. Meena 114 K.Panchali 115 Indarani 116 Samu. Lakshmi 117 K.Mathammal 118 P.Sundari 119 Mani. Parvathi 120 K.Bakkiam 121 Samu.Selvi 122 Rukmani 123 Thalai.Velliammal 124 Andi Palaniammal 125 Thalai Jayamani 126 Sora Valli 127 Pushparani 128 Nagavalli 129 K.Kuppayee 130 A.Dhanabakkiam 131 G.Lakshmi 132 K.Sulochana
133 Boopathi 134 Kala 135 Chinnavellayan 136 Theerthagiri 137 A.Kuppusamy 138 Eswaran 139 Chandran 140 Mariammal 141 Vijiyan 142 Chinnakuppan 143 Paramasivam 144 Allimuthu 145 Moyyasamy 146 Peruchandi 147 Pil.Kozhanthan 148 Pali.Goundan 149 Rajendran 150 Vijayakumar 151 Palanisamy 152 Periyamanian 153 Elangovan 154 Balakrishnan 155 S.Mani 156 Perumal 157 A.Andi 158 Rathinavalli 159 Annamalai Respondents1 to159 are rep. by Neelamalai Thotta Thozhilalar Sangam Thotta Thozhilalar Illam Main Road Yercaud 160 The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Calling for the order of the 160th respondent Labour Court, Salem dated 18.8.2014 in I.A. No.395 of 2009 in C.P.No.117 of 2006 and quash the order dated 18.8.2014 in C.P.No.117 of 2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan For R1 to R.159 : Mr. K.M.Ramesh
ORDER
The Management has filed the above writ petition to issue writ of certiorari to call for the order dated 18.8.2014 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, passed in I.A.No.395 of 2009 in C.P.No.117 of 2006 and quash the same.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents filed C.P.No.117 of 2006 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, for recovery of interest of Rs.17,10,536.44 for the delayed payment of wages as per 12 (3) settlement dated 03.12.2003 for the period from 01.01.1995 to 02.4.2004 against them. On 10.1.2007, the petitioner Management, failed to appear before the Labour Court and, therefore, the Labour Court set them ex-parte and an ex-parte order was passed as against the Management. Thereafter, the Management filed an application stating that the person, who was in charge of the Management was suffering from heart disease for the past several years and, therefore he could not attend the Court on 10.01.2007. Hence, there is a delay of 1017 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order.
3. The said petition was opposed by the employees on various grounds. In the counter, they have stated that the Management has not explained the reasons for the delay in proper manner. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the case of both sides, dismissed the application filed by the Management stating that the delay of 1017 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was not properly explained by the Management. Against the said order, the Management has filed the above writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 159.
5. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.395 of 2009 in C.P.No.117 of 2006, it could be seen that the representative of the Management has stated that he was suffering from heart ailment and that he was taking treatment for the past several years. Therefore, he could not appear before the Court on 10.01.2007. The Management also produced the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor in support of their contention. However, on a perusal of the Medical certificate dated 10.11.2009 produced by the petitioner Management, it could be seen that the Doctor has not stated that the representative of the Management was taking treatment during the relevant period and that he was bed-ridden and that he was not in a position to move around or appear before the Court. That apart, the Management has not examined the Doctor on its side. In fact, the Management has not examined their representative also in order to substantiate the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
6. In the absence of any acceptable reason given by the Management for condoning the inordinate delay of 1017 days, the application filed by the Management was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court.
7. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Labour Court and the writ
petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Management has already deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the earlier writ proceedings and the same has been withdrawn by the workers. Thereafter, in the present writ petition, this Court had directed the Management to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.9.2014. According to the learned counsel on either side, the said amount was also deposited by the Management in due compliance of the order dated 24.9.2014. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner Management has deposited sum of Rs.3,00,000/- even during the pendency of the application before the Labour Court.
9. Since the writ petition has been dismissed by this Court, I permit the respondents workers to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the petitioner Management and the respondents workers are also at liberty to claim the balance amount, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ga To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.
+1cc to M/s.M.Sivavarthanan, Advocate, S.R.No.16783 +1cc to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.16773 W.P.No.25896 of 2014 CA(CO) CA(07/04/2015)