Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Panimalar Polytechnic College (Jai Sakthi Educational Trust) – Appellant
Versus
M. Gnanaprakasam – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CMP NO. 3421 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S. Soundararajan
For the Respondents: Mr.Mohammed Qamar Ahmed
A grievance regarding employment should be addressed to the appropriate grievance redressal forum, not civil court, unless specific exceptions apply.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge a lower court's order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. Facts of the Case: The petitioners appealed a decision by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, regarding the plaintiff's suit for recovery of salary instead of going to the AICTE Grievance Redressal Committee.
Findings of Court:
The court found the trial court's dismissal was sustainable and required no interference.
Issues: The court framed whether the suit was maintainable when the grievance should have been addressed to the AICTE.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's order was proper as there was no relief sought by the respondent regarding the grievance before the AICTE forum.
Result: This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as no merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the premise of the dispute centered around salary recovery and proper grievance redressal forums. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments focused on the appropriateness of the jurisdiction for the grievance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the court upheld the trial court's decision based on factual findings. (Para 5) |
| 4. final ruling resulted in dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.7999 of 2022 by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint in O.S.No.7999 of 2022 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff ought to have approached the AICTE Grievance Redressal Committee to redress his grievance with regard to service matter. Inspite of that, he filed the suit as such is not maintainable. But the respondent/plaintiff raised objections stating that the reason assigned by the revision petitioners as such is not maintainable and already the plaintiff was forced to tender his resignation and the management had withheld his original documents. Therefore, he filed a suit before the trial court and not before the AICTE. Considering that the trial judge held that as per the plaint averments, the dispute is only with regard to recovery of salary. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would submit that if at all, any grievance between employee and college authority, they have to go for AICTE Grievance Redressal forum, instead of that, filing of a civil suit as such is not maintainable.
4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondent would submit that the revision petitioners have submitted a letter dated 09.01.2023 to the Commissioner of Technical Education stating that due to the pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.7999 of 2022, they wanted to try the adjudication before the court. So, they wanted to drop further action before the authority.
5. Heard and considered rival submissions made by both learned counsel for revision petitioners as well as respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that the revision petitioners in order to escape from the clutches of law, they have already forwarded a letter to the Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai to drop further proceedings and based on the letter, the Department of Technical Education has stopped further action. Therefore, now challenging the said letter, it is the issue with regard to arrears of salary, which is pending before the civil court. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has not sought for any relief. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial judge is sustainable one, which requires no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as no merit. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
