Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1066 (MAD)

K. Muthu v. Labour Officer

2012-02-28

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. 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 under Section 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 under Section 153 of the Act. 2. The petitioner on being advised instead of moving the revisional authority raised an industrial dispute under Section 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. 3. When the matter came up on 23.2.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take notice and get instructions. 4. 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 under Section 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. 5. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 v. Management of Safire Theatre, Madras and another reported in 1991 (1) LLJ 111. The Supreme Court while taking exception to the Full Bench judgment in paragraph 2 observed as follows: "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 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." 7. 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.