IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 15.10.2024 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.35608 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.35542 of 2023 &

W.M.P.No.17661 of 2024 The Management of Woori Bank Chennai Branch, Lotte India

2^nd Floor, No.4/169, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR)

Kandanchavadi, Perungudi Taluk, Chennai - 600 096 ...Petitioner Vs

1. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Tribunal Chennai

2. M.Dinesh Kumar New No.2, Old No.42/2, 2nd Floor, Lal Begum Street, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records of the 1^st respondent in TNSE-

II/IA/16/2021 and quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.Gaurav Chatterjee For Respondents : Mrs.M.Jayanthi for R1 Mr.K.M.Ramesh for R2 Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Subramani

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the appellate Authority dated 22.05.2023 made in TNSE-II/IA/16/2021.

2. An application has been filed by the 2^nd respondent to condone the delay of 1010 days in filing the appeal, challenging the order of termination dated 03.12.2018. The 1^st respondent / appellate authority had chosen to condone the delay by giving the benefit of exemption of limitation allowed for certain period by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 made in Suomotu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. The said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would exclude the period between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or any proceedings. The balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020 shall be available to the party concerned with effect from 03.10.2021. So far as the 2^nd respondent is concerned, he has got 30 days limitation from 03.12.2018. In such case, the limitation would expire by 02.01.2019. The 2^nd respondent has filed an appeal on 14.10.2021, during which time, the limitation of 30 days has already been expired. This is even after providing the special exclusion of relaxation period from

15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 in view of covid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exclusion can be applied only for those cases for which the limitation expires by 15.03.2020 or between the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 and not for the 2^nd respondent's case for whom limitation has been expired one year prior to the Covid Pandemic, i.e., on 02.01.2019. The attention was drawn to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dated 18.09.2020 made in Civil Appeal nos.3007 and 3008 of 2020 [Sagufa Ahmed & Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt., Ltd., & Ors]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that exclusion has been given only for the period of limitation and not for the period on which the delay can be condoned by exercising the discretion conferred by the statute. The words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relevant part of the order reads as under:-

“19. But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order this Court was only “the period of limitation” and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two latin maxims, one of which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.”

4. Further, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no acceptable reason is stated by the 2^nd respondent to condone the delay of 1010 days, but the 1^st