Judgment :- 1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors were promoted as Assistant Managers overlooking him. He was not aware of the same as the orders promoting the juniors were not served on him. As soon as, he came to know the same, he preferred a Revision Petition dated 15.5.2013 under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the 2nd respondent. 3. In these circumstances, there was a delay of 52 days. He explained that the delay was only in the said circumstances. But the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2013 that the petitioner did not explain the delay. 4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order dated 3.6.2013 of the 2nd respondent and to remit the matter to the 2nd respondent to decide the matter on merits. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was overlooked in the matter of granting promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. According to him, he was not aware as to when the actual promotions were given to his juniors. He approached the authorities under the RTI Act and obtained the details and thereafter, he filed a Revision Petition before the 2nd respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. He also filed the application to condone the delay of 52 days in the said circumstances. 7. But the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2013 without applying his mind. The order is a cryptic one. It is stated that since there was a delay in making the revision, the revision is dismissed. It is also stated that the application seeking to condone the delay cannot also be accepted. 8. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 3.6.2013 is extracted here under : “TAMIL” 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. W hen the petitioner categorically stated that the orders promoting the juniors were not served on him and he collected the materials through RTI Act and in that process, there was a delay of 52 days in filing the revision, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the same while deciding the application to condone the delay. 10. W hen the petitioner categorically stated that the orders promoting the juniors were not served on him and he collected the materials through RTI Act and in that process, there was a delay of 52 days in filing the revision, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the same while deciding the application to condone the delay. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in N.P.Palanisamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government, Food and Co-operation Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-2 and others reported in 2012(4) CTC 257 wherein in para Nos.25 and 26, it has been stated as follows: "25. After having elaborately dealt with number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Division Bench ultimately answered the questions as follows: "24. Section 153 of 1983 Act is a departure from S.97 of the 1961 Act and it is wider in nature. Power has been specifically conferred on the Revisional Authority under S.153 to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws of any officer subordinate to the Registrar or of the Board of Director or any officer of a registered society or of the Competent Authority constituted under S.75(3) of the 1983 Act. Therefore, the employees of a Co-operative society can approach the Registrar or any competent Authority under S.153 to revise any order passed by the Co-operative Society relating to disciplinary action taken against him or denial of promotion or wrong fixation of seniority, etc. (v) There is no implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the power of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to deal with similar matters if disputes are raised before them by workmen or employees covered by those provisions. Both remedies are available." 26. From the above judgment, it is crystal clear that an employee of a Co-operative society has got remedies available both under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act as well as under the Industrial Disputes Act. In a given case, suppose, an employee who has got both remedies available for him approaches the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute regarding his termination from service, under the Industrial Disputes Act, there is no limitation and therefore, he can raise the dispute within a reasonable time. In a given case, suppose, an employee who has got both remedies available for him approaches the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute regarding his termination from service, under the Industrial Disputes Act, there is no limitation and therefore, he can raise the dispute within a reasonable time. If for any reason, he choses to file a Revision under Section 153 of the Act, belatedly, it cannot be said that his remedy is barred by limitation. It cannot be said that while enacting Section 153 of the Act, the legislature was unaware of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. W hen there is no period of limitation for an employee to raise an industrial dispute, I am firm in my view that there shall be no such period of limitation for him to file a Revision under the Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, if we read Section 153 of the Act, in the context of the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, it will surely give the impression that what is contained in the proviso to Section 153 of the Act, is not at all mandatory and it is only directory." 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent, to decide the condone delay application afresh on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 12. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.