Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80400
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, J
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
V.VIJAYAN – Respondent
W.P.No.2443 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 2840 of 2020
M/s.Shubharanjani Ananth, S.Balasubramanian and N.Darani for Petitioners; Mr.V.Saravanan, Advocate for Respondent 1; Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Advocate for Respondent 1; Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP for Respondent 3
An employee must exhaust the conciliation process before approaching the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, and cannot pursue both the revision under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Labour Court remedy for the same cause of action.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A(2) - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 153 - Dismissal of employee - The Labour Court's award set aside as the dismissal was deemed illegal; the employee's direct approach to the Labour Court without exhausting conciliation was improper. (Paras 2, 12, 26)
(B) Jurisdiction - The employee cannot pursue both the revision under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Labour Court remedy for the same cause of action. (Paras 19, 20)
(C) Delay - The employee's claim was barred by limitation as he did not follow the mandatory conciliation process before approaching the Labour Court. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The management challenged the Labour Court's award reinstating the employee after a dismissal in 2002, which was deemed illegal. The employee had not followed the required conciliation process before filing a claim.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's award was invalid as it failed to consider the mandatory conciliation requirement.
Issues: Whether the employee could invoke the Labour Court's jurisdiction after exhausting the revision remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an employee must choose one forum and cannot pursue both remedies for the same issue.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The 1st writ petitioner is the Management of Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, and the 2nd writ petitioner is its Regional Manager. In the present writ petition, they have jointly challenged the award dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 315 of 2014. By the said award, the Labour Court held that the dismissal order dated 05.08.2002 (marked as W12) was illegal. Consequently, the dismissal was set aside and the writ petitioners were directed to reinstate the 1st respondent and compute his back wages from 05.08.2002 up to the date of his retirement. The court further directed that 50% of the computed amount be paid to the 1st respondent on or before 18.12.2019, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Court further stated that 1st respondent was not granted reinstatement as he had attained the age of superannuation, the Labour Court nonetheless held that he was entitled to all attendant benefits.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 04.02.2020. On the same day, an interim stay was granted, taking note of the fact that the workman had approached the Labour Court after a lapse of 12 years from the date of his dismissal, and therefore, the dispute was prima facie barred under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act . However, the stay was initially limited to a period of six weeks. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 18.03.2020, the interim order was extended. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the Labour Court has forwarded the original records pertaining to the industrial dispute.
4. The petitioners have stated that the 1st respondent was initially appointed as an Assistant Salesman in the year 1972, and his services were regularized in May 1979. During the year 1983–84, he was transferred to Chennai and posted at the Thillaiyadi Valliammai Maaligai. Subsequently, in 1992, he was transferred to Tiruvallur, then in 1994 to Ambattur, and thereafter, on 16.05.1995, he was posted to Nagalapuram. In 1996, he was placed under suspension. On 05.08.1998, he was transferred to Madhanappalli in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, the 1st respodent refused to resume work at Madhanappalli, citing medical reasons. He addressed a letter dated 23.11.1998 to the petitioner management requesting cancellation of the transfer order, which was followed by another communication dated 26.11.1998. He subsequently applied for medical leave from 23.12.1998 to 28.12.1998, and again from 26.01.1999 to 12.04.1999.
5. The petitioner management issued a charge memo to the 1st respondent on 11.11.1999, followed by an additional charge memo dated 26.07.2000. Two reminder memos were issued seeking his explanation. Subsequently, an enquiry notice was issued on 10.04.2001, and the enquiry report was submitted on 19.04.2001. Based on the findings of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the 1st respondent along with a copy of the enquiry report. Pursuant to a final show cause notice dated 05.04.2002, the 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 10.06.2002. Thereafter, by order dated 05.08.2002, the 1st respondent was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal, he preferred an appeal to the Special Officer (3rd respondent), which came to be rejected on 06.01.2009.
6. Thereafter, the 1st respondent preferred a revision petition before the Secretary to Government. Although the Secretary was initially impleaded as the second respondent in the present proceedings, the State was subsequently deleted from the array of parties on an application filed by it. The said revision came to be rejected by order dated 06.06.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 29147 of 2012 before this Court challenging the rejection of the revision. However, this Court, by order dated 12.08.2014, held that the 1st respondent was at liberty to approach the Labour Court and that the question of delay in raising the dispute need not be
