ORDER :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

“Pay the worker before his sweat dries” is an instruction attributed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

2.This principle is only a facet of fairness and is eminently applicable in labour jurisprudence. It can also be invoked in the case on hand.

3.The writ petitioner was the standing counsel for Madurai City Municipal Corporation for over 14 years from 1992 to 2006. He had represented the Corporation in the Madurai District Courts. His grievance is that the Corporation had not settled his fee bills. He, therefore, filed W.P.(MD)No.9282 of 2006 seeking payment. It was disposed of on 14.11.2006 with a direction to the respondent to consider his representation and pass an appropriate order. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, the Corporation has to pay a sum of Rs.14,07,807/-. But it paid only a sum of Rs.1,02,037/- and that the balance amount of Rs.13,05,770/-remains to be paid.

4.The respondent has filed their counter affidavit. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation submitted that the local body is ready to honour the petitioner's claim provided the claim bill is in order. He pointed out that along with the fee bills, copies of the judgments and decrees must be enclosed. In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, it has been alleged that on account of non-submission of the judgments within time, in quite a few cases, particularly public auction cases, the corporation faced heavy loss and that was why, the writ petitioner was removed from the panel of lawyers. The corporation is unable to pay the writ petitioner on account of non-submission of the copies of the judgments.

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner passed on a file containing the list of cases numbering 818 in which the writ petitioner is said to have appeared. I wanted to know what was the difficulty in obtaining certified copies in all those cases and handing over the same to the Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is now in penurious circumstances. When the petitioner approached an advocate's clerk for obtaining certified copies, the clerk is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.750/- for each certified copy. The petitioner is not in a position to afford the said sum.

6.I proceed on the premise that the submission made before me as regards the financial wherewithal of the petitioner is factually correct. In any event, I do not want to doubt the statement of a counsel that he is unable to even engage a clerk for obtaining certified copies for the 818 cases in which he had appeared.

7.I, therefore, permit the petitioner to approach the Chairman /Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Madurai District Court and hand over the list of cases in which he had appeared. The Chairman / Secretary to the Legal Services Authority is directed to verify the list given by the petitioner. Upon verifying that the writ petitioner had appeared in those cases, the Legal Services Authority shall arrange to obtain the certified copies and issue the same to the writ petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the writ petitioner shall submit his fee bills by enclosing the copies that will be issued by the Legal Services Authority. The Corporation of Madurai shall settle the fee bills without interest within a period of two months thereafter. Interest is denied since the petitioner has mounted his challenge after a lapse of 18 years. Secondly, the Corporation cannot be blamed for non-payment when the submission of the fee bill was not in order.

8.The Legal Service Authority may raise an invoice towards the cost incurred for issuing certified c