IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.NOs.10732 TO 10735 OF 2009 AND M.P.NOs.1 TO 1 OF 2009 E-2593, Sakkankudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., (Former Thenharirajapuram PACB Ltd) Rep. by its Special Officer, Sakkankudi Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. ... Petitioner in all WPs' Versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment (P2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. 3.N.Gnanaoli ... Respondents in all WPs PRAYER: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(T) Nos.435, 434, 436, and 413 Labour and Employment (P2) Department dated 22.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 respectively and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For R – 1 & R - 2 : Mrs.D.Geetha Additional Government Pleader For R – 3 : Mr.R.Muralidharan COMMON ORDER The writ petitions are filed against the order of the first respondent dated 22.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 in and under which the first respondent has issued necessary certificates to the District Collector to recover the money due to the third respondent/employee as per the award passed by the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The third respondent/employee has approached the second respondent Tribunal with Claim petition under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of arrears of salary relating to different period as mentioned therein and the same are entertained as Claim petition Nos.53/2001, 117/2004, 20/1998 and 21/2007 respectively. All the applications were duly contested and disposed of separately on 24.12.2002, 18.04.2007, 01.06.2000, and 21.04.2007 respectively. Thereafter, the third respondent/employee approached the Government with applications under Section 33 C (1) for issuance of recovery certificate to the District Collector, to recover the amount due to him under the award as above referred to and the applications relating to all the four awards are made on the same day i.e., 24.06.2008. The first respondent/Government has passed individual orders in all the four applications by granting necessary certificates and while the order relating to three applications C.P.Nos.53/2001, 117/2004, and 20/1998 are passed on 22.10.2008, the order relating to C.P.No.21/2007 is made on 10.10.2008 and the order passed by the first respondent in all the four applications above referred to are the subject matter of challenge in these four writ petitions. 3. The only ground on which the correctness of the order of the first respondent/Government is challenged in these writ petitions is that, the petitions for recovery certificate filed by the third respondent/employee under section 33 C (1) is not filed within the period of one year from the date of award in the claim petitions as per the proviso and the applications filed beyond the period of one year i.e., on 24.06.2008 are not filed along with any application to condone the delay and the applications are entertained by the first respondent/Government without satisfying itself about the sufficient cause for the delay in preferring such applications and that way the order passed by the first respondent/Government is without jurisdiction, unlawful and invalid. 4. In order to appreciate the contention so raised by the petitioner, the relevant dates to be looked into are as follows. As already referred to all the four Claim Petitions are disposed of between 01.06.2000 and 21.04.20007, where as the four applications under Section 33 C (1) are filed by the third respondent/employee on 24.06.2008 much beyond one year without any petition to condone the delay setting out reasons for such delay. Though the first respondent, who passed the impugned orders and the third respondent/employee are duly served with notice and are duly represented by their respective counsel in these writ petitions they are unable to contradict the statement so made by the petitioner that the petitions under question are filed beyond the period of limitation. As the first respondent/Government could not make any definite statement before this Court as to whether any petition is filed for condoning the delay or not this Court is constrained to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accept the petitioner's contention that the applications under Section 33 C (1) are filed by the third respondent/employee beyond the period of limitation and without any application for condoning the delay and the applications are entertained by the first respondent/Government without satisfying itself about the reason for the delay. As the applications are time barred and are entertained without jurisdiction the orders passed on such applications are nonest in law and cannot be legally allowed to stand and are hence, liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, all the four writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. vsm Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment (P2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. + 1 cc to Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate SR No.53104 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.53360 SGL(CO) SR/17.8.2010 W.P.NOs.10732 TO 10735 OF 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/