BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A(MD) No.390 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 The Management, 1896, Kadayanalloor Ayyapuram, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., 12-C, Santhai Street, Kadayanalloor, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs 1.V.Gandhi 2.The Labour Assistant Commissioner, The Appellate Authority, Under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.3260 of 2008 dated 08.04.2008. !For Appellant ... Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam ^For Respondent ... Mr.R.S.Ramanathan for R.1 Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, Special Govt. Pleader for R.2 :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by
ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J)
This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P(MD)No.3260 of 2008 dated 08.04.2008.
2. The appellant namely the Management, 1896, Kadayanalloor Ayyapuram
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd, Kadayanalloor, Tirunelveli District,
has filed W.P.No.3260 of 2008, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
records on the file of the second respondent relating to the order in TNSENo.5
of 1999 dated 30.04.2003 and to quash the same. The learned Single Judge of
this Court on 08.04.2008 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ
petition has been filed very belatedly, nearly four years after the order dated
30.04.2003 passed by the second respondent and that even then, no diligent
steps have been taken by the appellant/petitioner in setting aside the order of
the second respondent dated 30.04.2003.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for
the first respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader for the second
respondent and perused the materials available on record and the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge.
4. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that there is an
enormous delay of four years in preferring the writ petition against the order
of the second respondent and further during the period of suspension, the first
respondent herein was not paid with subsistence allowance and the enquiry was
held without paying the subsistence allowance and the copy of the basic report
was also not served on the first respondent which is violative of the principles
of natural justice.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that there was an
enormous delay of four years and that it was observed by the learned Appellate
Authority that the first respondent was not paid with subsistence allowance
during the period of suspension and the basic report was not supplied to the
first respondent, this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ appeal which
deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
rsb
To
The Labour Assistant Commissioner,
The Appellate Authority,
Under the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishment Act,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.