IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:19.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.3540 of 2004 The Commissioner, Melpuram Panchayat Union, Melpuram, Kanniyakumari District. ... petitioner Versus 1.V.Ayyavoo 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent and particularly the award passed in ID.No.209/92 (m) and ID.No.577/92 (ki) dated 22.10.2002 and quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.N.Sampath For R-1 : No Appearance For R-2 : Court O R D E R This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent and particularly the award passed in ID.No.209/92 (m) and ID.No.577/92 (ki) dated 22.10.2002 and quash the same. 2.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition, is that the first respondent while working as an assessor, due to want of vacancy, a resolution was passed by the Panchayat Union for mixing both carpentry Unit and blocksmithy Unit as one unit and for want of vacancy, the first respondent was terminated by an order dated 01.03.1968. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Subsequently, the first respondent wrongly preferred an appeal before the Director of Rural Development on 05.03.1975. Since the same was not presented through proper channel, the same was rejected and, subsequently, the first respondent Mr.Ayyavoo has preferred a proper appeal on 18.8.1976. The Director of Rural Development, after considering the matter in detail, rejected the appeal of the first respondent on 01.10.1981. After the rejection of the appeal the first respondent slept over the matter for 11 years and thereafter, raised a claim petition before the Labour Court at Thirunelveli by raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour court having not kept in mind the delay, which has been strictly objected by the petitioner, has erroneously allowed the claim petition by passing an award in ID Nos.209/92 (m) and 577/92 (ki) dated 22.10.2002. 3.The contention raised by the petitioner is that when there was a specific plea taken by the petitioner that the claim of the first respondent was filed with a delay of 11 years from the date of order of rejection passed by the appellate authority, and with a delay of 24 years from the date of termination order dated 1.3.1968, the Labour Court, without proper application of mind, has allowed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the above said award, the present writ petition has been filed. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the first respondent Mr.V.Ayyavoo was working as a Skilled Assistant in the petitioner Panchayat Union, Melapuram, and due to want of sufficient fund and there being no vacancy, to ease out from the financial crisis, a resolution dated 28.02.1968 was passed merging the carpentry unit and blacksmithy unit. As a result the first respondent, who was working in the carpentry unit was terminated from the service by on order dated 1.3.1968. Aggrieved by the said order the the first respondent filed an appeal, which was not routed through the proper channel and therefore, the same was rejected. After the said rejection, the first respondent has filed proper appeal on 18.8.1976 before the Secretary, Rural Development. The appeal of the first respondent came to be rejected by the Secretary of Rural Development, by an order dated 01.10.1981. Thereafter,the first respondent slept over the matter for about 11 years and after a long delay of 11 years, in the year 1992, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing a claim petition before the Labour Court at Tirunelveli. 5.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Labour Court, even without assigning a single reason as to whether the first respondent has made out a case for condoning the delay for 11 years, in raising the Industrial Dispute https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ erroneously allowed the claim of re-instatement in service. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that such claim, which has been filed with a delay of 11 years should not be allowed. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vsm To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli. Copy to The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.N.Sampath, Advocate, SR.26217. W.P.No.3540 of 2004 BS(CO) RVL 26.05.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/