The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing a revision under Section 153(1) of the Act is directory, not mandatory, and should be interpreted in light of the legislative intent and the cause of justice.

1. "Whether the period of ninety days prescribed in the proviso to Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act for filing a revision is mandatory or directory?" This is the only question which needs to be explored in this writ petition.

2. The above question has arisen in the following factual back ground. The petitioner was employed as a Casheer cum Assistant in the Thalavadi Branch of the “Erode District Central Co-operative Bank” which is a Co-opeartive Society governed by the Tamil nadu Co-operative Societies Act. On 07.02.2000, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner levelling a lone charge. The petitioner denied the said charge. Having not satisfied with the same, the third respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry into the same. The petitioner participated in the enuiry. The Enquiry Officer finally held that the petitioner is guilty of the said charge. Based on the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the fourth respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.26843/99-2000-D2 on 23.08.2000.

3. According to the petitioner, challenging the said termination, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Erode. The said proceeding was kept pending before the Labour Officer under conciliation for quite some time. At last, the conciliation failed. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, when he attempted to approach the Labour Court, he was informed that the proper remedy for him was to file revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, before the second respondent herein. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent on 03.03.2003. Having considered the above, the second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.183954/2002/Sa.Pa.1 dated 23.04.2003 rejected the revision solely on the ground that the revision was barred by limitation as provided in Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

4. In this writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that Section 153(1) of the Act, is not mandatory and it is purely directory and therefore, the same cannot be equated to limitation so as to non suit the petitioner from getting the revision disposed of on merits. As per Section 152 of the Act, in the matter of appeal, there is limitation provided and there is also an enabling provision to condone the delay for reasons to be recorded by the appellate authority. But, there is no such provision in Section 153 of the Act for the condonation of delay.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Rule 169(5) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 wherein, it is provided that on receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority has to examine the same and ensure that it is made within the time limit specified for appeal or is accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no such provision in the Rules which mandates that the revision shall be rejected if the same is filed beyond the period of limitation. From this, according to the learned counsel, it is evident that what is contained in 153(1) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order rejecting the revision only on the ground that the revision was not filed within the time prescribed in Section 153(1) of the Act, is not sustainable. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court about which, I would make reference at the appropriate stage of this order.

6. But the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would oppose this writ petition. According to the learned Additional Gover