Judgment : Ms. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsel, the writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing. 3. Thepetitioner was working as Salesman in the second respondent Stores and was dismissed from the service on 2.12.1994 by the second respondent. He raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer and it was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Madurai. For the reasons known to the petitioner, he allowed the matter to be dismissed on 20.12.2002 for default. 4. Thepetitioner did not do anything for certain period. During that time, the petitioner was persuading the management to restore his service. Since the management did not agree for his reinstatement, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, before the first respondent/Appellate Authority. As there was a considerable delay in filing the appeal, (delay of 4001 days in filing the appeal) he filed an I.A to condone the said delay in I.A. No. 14 of 2005. Notice was ordered to the second respondent who resisted the condonation of the delay. The authority by its order dated 28.8.2006 refused to condone the delay. It is this order which is challenge in this writ petition. 5. Themain ground taken by the second respondent and accepted by the first respondent in the impugned order is that the petitioner had not sufficiently explained the delay. However, it was brought to the notice of the authority that the petitioner moved the forum under the I.D. Act and thereafter moved the Officers of the Co-operative Department. The counsel for the management contended that in view of the "doctrine of election" and the petitioner having chosen a forum he should stand or fall by the outcome of that proceedings. Insofar as the petitioner had not taken any steps to set aside the order dated 20.1.2006, the Labour Courts Award is binding on the petitioner. The second respondent had also taken the stand in the counter affidavit that after the introduction of Section 2-A in the I.D. Act the only forum available is the I.D. Act and not Shops Act. Accepting the contentions of the management therefore, the first respondent, did not permit the condonation of delay. The second respondent had also taken the stand in the counter affidavit that after the introduction of Section 2-A in the I.D. Act the only forum available is the I.D. Act and not Shops Act. Accepting the contentions of the management therefore, the first respondent, did not permit the condonation of delay. It is also stated that sufficient cause has not been shown. 6. To the fortune of the petitioner similar stand was rejected by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter relating to the Workmen of Satire Theatre, Chennai. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court came to be made reversing the Full Bench judgment of High Court in 1977-II-LLJ-3127. A full Bench of this Court took the view that though "doctrine of election" is available as between the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and TNSE Act but when workmen chooses to avail one remedy, he cannot pursue the other remedy simultaneously. 7. Thejudgment of the Supreme Court is reported in Nirchiliya and Another v. Safire Theatre, Madras and Another 1990 (2) LLN 4. The relevant passage from the said judgment is usefully extracted below: 2) "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 tinder 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." 8. Therefore, the question of one choosing only one forum does not rise. Only a decision of one forum will terminate the other proceedings. In these circumstances, the order passed by the first respondent/appellate authority is clearly illegal. The authority had not considered the time taken before the forum under the I.D. Act and the petitioner having moved the matter before the Officers of the Cooperative Department. The impugned order is therefore Set aside. 9. In these circumstances, the order passed by the first respondent/appellate authority is clearly illegal. The authority had not considered the time taken before the forum under the I.D. Act and the petitioner having moved the matter before the Officers of the Cooperative Department. The impugned order is therefore Set aside. 9. Further the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the remedy under the I.D Act is a wider remedy and that the remedy available under shop Act is very narrow. Even this issue was held against the respondent by the Full Bench judgment cited supra. 10. The first respondent is directed to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner and number the same and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law after notice to the parties. 11. With these directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.