Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DHANABAL, J
The Management of Minosha India Limited (formerly known as Ricoh India Limited) – Appellant
Versus
R. Rajkumar – Respondent
W.P. No.1879 of 2022 | W.M.P. No.2031 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P. Raghunathan for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
For the Respondents: Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar
The Labour Court erred in condoning a delay of 2670 days without a sufficient cause, reiterating that negligence and lack of diligence preclude delay condonation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Petition to quash Labour Court's order condoning a delay of 2670 days in restoration of industrial dispute - Respondent's claims and ill-health cited as reasons for delay - Labour Court's order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient cause and inadequate explanations (Paras 2, 8, 9).
(B) Limitation Act - Delay in filing - The law establishes the necessity of providing a sufficient cause for delay; negligence and lack of diligence cannot warrant condonation of an inordinate delay (Paras 25, 26). Fact of the case: The petition was motivated by an order to restore an industrial dispute dismissed for default due to non-appearance, with an extensive delay of 2670 days, which the respondent attributed to ill-health.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the respondent failed to provide adequate justification for such a substantial delay and that the Labour Court had erred in condoning it.
Issues: The key question was whether the respondent presented a sufficient cause for the extreme delay in filing the restoration petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Labour Court’s decision to condone the delay lacked proper justification and was thus overturned.
Result: The Writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petition seeks to challenge a lengthy delay in restoring an industrial dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the respondent cites ill-health as the reason for the delay. (Para 3) |
| 3. the labour court failed to consider adequate reasons for the delay. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. the supreme court's ruling on delay emphasizes the necessity for a sufficient cause. (Para 8) |
| 5. the writ court found the labour court's decision unjustifiable and set it aside. (Para 9) |
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed in I.A. No.1 of 2020 in I.D. No.199 of 2003 dated 03.12.2021 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, wherein the respondent herein filed a petition in I.A. No.1 of 2020 to condone the delay of 2670 days in filing of restoration application in I.D. No.199 of 2003 and the Labour Court allowed the petition. Now the petitioner has challenged the said order through this Writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent claiming to have been employeed by M/s. Riccoh India Pvt. Limited and now renamed as Minosha India Limited. After recording the evidence on both sides, the industrial dispute in I.D. No.199 of 2003 was posted for arguments. At that time, due to non-appearance of the respondent, the said industrial dispute was dismissed for default by the Labour Court on 15.09.2012. Thereafter, the respondent had not taken any steps to restore the petition. In the meantime, an Insolvency application was filed against Ricoh India Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act , 2016 and a Resolution Professional was appointed and a Resolution plan was also approved by the National Company Law Tribunal on 28.11.2019. Following the same, only claims of both Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, who filed their claims before the Resolution Professional, were paid by the new management as a part of the Resolution plan. All other liabilities stood extinguished by the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal. The respondent filed an application in January 2020 to restore the dispute along with application to condone the delay of 2670 days in fiing the restoration petition. The petitioner also strongly opposed to condone delay of 9 years and no valid reason was given to condone the delay. The affidavit of the respondent does not explain about the delay of 2670 days in filing the restoration petition. However, the Labour Court, allowed the application without any sufficient cause shown by the respondent. Though the Labour Court dismissed the impugned industrial dispute for default, at the stage of arguments, the present petition is filed to condone the delay after 9 years. Therefore, the Labour Court has to look into the fact that whether any sufficient cause was given for the delay. But without any sufficient cause for the delay of 2670 days, the Labour Court allowed the petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who was appointed through Legal Services Authority would submit that the respondent was unable to appear on the date of hearing due to his ill health and thereafter, he approached his previous counsel and he had not informed the hearing date properly and thereafter, due to his ill-health, he wsa unable to contact his counsel and thereafter only, he came to know about the dismissal of the main petition. Though there is a delay of 2670 days, due to his ill-health, the respondent was unable to take steps to file restoration petition within time and the main case was posted for arguments and on that date, even in the absence of the respondent, the Labour Court ought to have disposed the case on merits. Therefore, considering the above said aspects, the Labour Court condoned the delay. Because of the wrong committed by the Court, the litigant cannot be suffered, thereby, the Labour Court condoned the delay. Therefore,
