IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.6175 to 6178 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 K.Arumugam ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6175/2010 E.Venkatesan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6176/2010 S.Panneerselvam ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6177/2010 M.Meenakshi ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6178/2010 Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai. 2. The management M/s.Ganghadaram Applicances Ltd., No.143, Kelambakkam (via) Vandaloor Road, Pudupakkam, Kancheepuram District. ..Respondents in all W.Ps. Prayer : Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 1st respondent pertaining to his order passed in I.A.No.33 of 2008 in I.D.No.471/96, I.A.No.86 of 2008 in I.D.No.553/96, I.A.No.87 of 2008 in I.D.No.694/96 and I.A.No.57 of 2008 in I.D.No.507/96 dated 26.8.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the I.D.afresh. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Solomon COMMON ORDER The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are workmen employed by the 2nd respondent. As against their non-employment, they raised a dispute under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After a failure report given by the Conciliation Officer, claim statements were filed before the 1st respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court entertained those claim statements as various industrial disputes and in the present case, the industrial disputes are treated as I.D.Nos.471, 553, 694 and 507 of 1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Subsequently, it transpires that the petitioners did not prosecute the disputes diligently and they were dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 28.2.2002. The petitioners never took any steps to set aside the ex parte order by invoking Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules. The petitioners thereafter came to file an application to set aside the ex parte award by filing interim applications only in the year 2008. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, the petitioners stated that their authorised representative one Mr.R.K.Swaminathan expired on 18.3.2001 and they were not informed about the death of their authorised representative. Therefore, the industrial dispute came to be dismissed for default. It is only when they came to know after the dismissal of the industrial dispute after a period of 6 years, they chose to file applications for setting aside the ex parte award. The applications filed by the petitioners were numbered as I.A.Nos. 33, 86, 87 and 57 of 2008. 3. On notice from the Labour Court on the application to condone the delay of 2208 days, the management opposed the restoration on the ground that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. The Labour Court heard all the interim applications together and passed a common order dated 20.6.2008. The Labour Court by the common order dismissed all the applications stating that the delay in moving the court was not sufficiently explained. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the applications can be taken on file. In paragraphs 3 and 7 of the order, it was found as follows: "3. In the affidavit there is nothing requesting the move or steps by the petitioners in between after death of the representative in 2001 and petition filed in the year 2008. It is not even shown in the affidavit that they have been interested in conducting the case. It shows their lethargic attitude. Further they have not been litigant in prosecuting the case. It is also seen from the records that the above petition is filed long after years in publication of the award. The reasons alleged in the affidavit are as bald as it could be and the petitioner want indulgence of court when they themselves are not diligent in conduction the case. .. 7. In this case on hand that the petition was filed after lapse of many years after the publication of the award. It could be seen that there is no valid ground to entertain the petition. On the other hand it shows that the petitioners were not interested in conducting the case and further not diligent in proceeding with the case. It shows that the petitioners slept over years after the disposal of the case. The court finds that there is no justification https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in condoning the delay. Hence in the above circumstance the petitioner is dismissed without costs." It is this order, which is challenged in the Writ Petition. 4. The petitioners have stated the very same reasons, which were stated in the applications to condone the delay. Though it was stated that they were willing to forego back wages for the year 2002-2008, that was not a ground to condone the delay. No doubt, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court cannot refuse to answer a reference on the grounds of delay and once a reference is made, then the delay can only have a bearing on the back wages. The same reasoning will not apply to an order of reference which is dismissed for default and sought to be revived after a period of six years. Then the Rule 48 of the Industrial Disputes Rules will come into operation and unless the delay is satisfactorily explained to the Court, it is the court's discretion to reject such exercise. 5. In the present case, the 1st respondent Labour Court has clearly stated that the grounds raised by the petitioner are not acceptable and they were not diligent enough to pursue their remedy brought to the court. In this context, the finding of the Labour Court that they have slept over the matter for more than 6 years cannot be impeached in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ajr To The Presiding Officer I Addl. Labour Court Chennai. W.P.Nos.6175 to 6178 of 2010 JRG (CO) GSK 06.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/