Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13516
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice D.NAGARJUN
THE MANAGEMENT – Appellant
Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER – Respondent
Ex parte orders should typically be set aside when applications are made within the limitation period, focusing on the reasons for absence rather than trial merits.
Headnote:
Labour - Writ Petitions - I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2012 - Sections of Limitation Act - Court emphasizes the necessity of setting aside ex parte orders within limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner management closed its business in 2001, settling Provident Fund amounts. Respondents sought backwages through computation petitions after the management was set ex parte. The management requested to set aside the ex parte orders but faced dismissal of their applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court should have considered the applications for setting aside the ex parte orders without delving into the merits of the main petitions, as the applications were filed within the limitation period.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court's dismissal of the applications to set aside the ex parte order was justified given the condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: When applications to set aside ex parte orders are filed within the limitation period, they should generally be allowed, as the reasons for the delay are often the same for setting aside the order.
Final Decision: Writ petitions allowed; orders of the Labour Court set aside.
C O M M O N O R D E R
These writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the orders made in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2012 in C.P.Nos.34 and 35 of 2007 on the file of the labour Court, Salem.
2. The facts in brief are that the second respondent in both the writ petitions were working with the petitioner management. Petitioner Management business was closed in the year 2001 and since then, no operations were carried out by the petitioner Management. Provident Fund amount was settled in favour of second respondents in both the writ petitions. The second respondents in both the petitions are bargaining for some more amount other than what was settled in year 2001.
3. The second respondents have filed C.P.Nos.34 and 35 of 2007 seeking Rs.4,48,000/- and 3,22,500/- respectively, towards backwages from 1/11/2001 to 31/3/2006, respectively. On 1/11/2010, the petitioner Management was remained ex parte and thereby C.P was allowed. The petitioner Management has filed I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2012 for setting aside the orders in C.P.Nos.34 and 35 of 2007. As there was a delay of 160 days in filing the said petitions, the petitioner has also filed I.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2012 to condone the delay of 160 days and these petitions were allowed on 25/5/2012, and delay was condoned. However, I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2012 filed for setting aside the ex parte order were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petitions are filed.
4. The second respondent in both the petitions have filed counter affidavits mentioning about the details of filing the Computation Petition and other connected aspects.
5. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the second respondents in both the petitions.
6. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem in I.A.Nos.10 and 11of
2012 in C.P.Nos.34 and 35 of 2007 will sustain.
7. The petitioner was set ex parte in C.P.Nos.34 and 35 of 2007 on
12/1/2010. As there was a delay in filing these applications for setting aside, the petitioners has filed I.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2012 to condone the delay of 160 days. The said applications were allowed and delay was condoned. Once delay is condoned, it is deemed that the applications for setting aside the ex parte order are filed within limitation. Now once applications for setting aside the ex parte order is well within the time, the question is whether the Presiding Officer has got any discretion to dismiss the applications.
8. In S.NEHRU AND ORS Vs. S.SIVASANKAR AND ORS (2015 1 CTC – 267), wherein at paragraph No.4, it has been held as follows:-
“It is seen that as against the Defendants, ex parte Decree came to be passed on 6.7.2009. It is also seen that the Defendants sought to set aside the ex parte Decree after a delay of 842 days.Therefore, they have filed the Application in I.A. No. 17954 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 842 days. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Affidavit, dated 28.11.2011 filed by the Fourth Defendant, is the common Affidavit filed in support of the Application filed under section5 of the limitation act as well as the Application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. Therefore, it is evident that the reasons stated for condoning the delay as well as for setting aside the ex parte Decree, are one and the same in the one Affidavit filed, i.e. dated 28.11.2011. Such contentions made in the said Affi-davit, were accepted by the Trial Court for condoning the delay and such Order of the Trial Court also has been confirmed by this Court in said C.R.P. Therefore, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Defendants in the said Affidavit, dated 28.11.2011, had been accepted by the Trial Court as well as by this Court and when that being the reasons commonly stated for condoning the delay as well as for setting aside the ex parte Decree, it cannot be said that such reasons acceptab
