Successive labor claim petitions for distinct causes of action or time periods are not barred by res judicata or Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Expired settlements remain binding as contractual obligations until replaced by a fresh agreement.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. No. 4 of 2014, by which a sum of Rs.10,51,740/- was computed as payable to the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum until the date of payment, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum. As per the endorsement on the certified copy, the order was delivered to the petitioner-society on 16.04.2018.

3.The petitioner initially filed the present writ petition on 27.08.2018. However, as the impugned order annexed to the petition was illegible, the Registry returned the papers, granting ten days’ time for compliance. The petitioner, however, re-presented the papers along with a compliance memo only on 08.02.2021, resulting in a delay of 867 days. To regularize the delay, the petitioner filed W.M.P. No. 2769 of 2021 seeking condonation. By order dated 05.02.2021, this Court condoned the delay on the condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund. Following compliance, the writ petition was numbered and admitted on 08.02.2021. An interim stay was also granted. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance through counsel.

4.Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the management is guilty of delay and laches in approaching this Court, having filed the writ petition nearly three years after the impugned order. It was argued that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, with particular emphasis on the following passage in paragraph 16:—

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”

Although the above passage aptly supports the rejection of the petitioner’s case on the ground of delay, the issue cannot be revisited, as this Court has already condoned the delay upon imposing a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

5.When the matter was taken up on 23.04.2024, this Court directed that it be placed before the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 08.06.2024. However, as no settlement was reached, the matter was returned for regular adjudication.