AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner is before this Court with a wrong reason. Earlier, the petitioner, who was employed by a Cooperative Society filed a Writ Petition
before this Court being W.P.No.7570 of 2002 challenging an order of termination. However, the said Writ Petition was heard along with another
Writ Petition and disposed of by a common order dated 17.3.2011. M.M.Sundaresh,J, while disposing of the said Writ Petitions gave liberty to
the petitioner to move the appropriate forum, instead of filing a Writ Petition against the Cooperative Society. The learned Judge in the course of
the order observed that the petitioner has right of filing a revision u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and disposed of the Writ
Petitions with liberty. At the same time in paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Judge held that the liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the
appropriate authority u/s 153 of the Act.
The petitioner on being advised instead of moving the revisional authority raised an industrial dispute u/s 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
before the Labour Officer Circle-III, Chennai. The Labour Officer instead of entertaining the application found that the liberty was only given to
move the revisional authority under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and therefore after availing the remedy as per the orders passed by
this Court and still if there is any necessity, a dispute can be raised. Challenging the order of the Labour Officer in declining to initiate conciliation
proceedings, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
When the matter came up on 23.2.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take notice and get instructions.
However, this is a matter, which does not require any objection by the Labour Officer as he can only conciliate between the parties and if the
conciliation does not end in any settlement, he has to give a failure report u/s 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though the respondents cannot
be so hyper technical in urging too much into the order passed by this Court, all this Court held was that the Writ Petition against the Cooperative
Society is not maintainable and the petitioner has option of moving the appropriate authority including revisional authority.
When there are several forums open to the petitioner, it is for him to elect the forum and the Court cannot thrust any forum on the worker. Once
it is held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, then the choice of forum is left open to the workman concerned. In respect of the workman
employed in the Cooperative Society, he has several forums and it is for him to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum of his choice.
When a question came up whether the worker should elect the forum as between the Industrial Disputes Act and the Shops Act, the matter was
dealt with by the Supreme Court in Nirchiliya and Others Vs. Management of Safire Theatre and Another, . The Supreme Court while taking
exception to the Full Bench judgment in paragraph 2 observed as follows:
We are of the view that once remedy could be worked out in either of the forums, when the proceeding before the Labour Court was not
continued, in the absence of any specific bar under either the Madras Act or the Industrial Disputes Act against the alternative forum being moved,
the jurisdiction of the authority under the Madras Act would not be barred. In the facts and circumstances appearing on the record, we are of the
view that the High Court went wrong in holding that there was a lack of jurisdiction in the competent authority under the Madras Act to entertain
the dispute. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the order of the competent authority under the Madras Act is restored.
In the light of the same, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to initiate
conciliation proceedings after giving Notice to the 2nd respondent and proceed in accordance with law. No costs.