Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1004 (MAD)

P. Sankar v. K. Jayasankar, Secretary, Chennai

2019-04-08

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2019
ORDER : 1. This Court has taken up for hearing these two writ petitions filed by the same writ petitioner, namely, Mr. P. Sankar. 2. The abovesaid two writ petitions are filed, seeking the same relief and thereby, the writ petitioner has abused the judicial process of law. 3. The relief sought for in the first writ petition in WP No. 4661 of 2018 is for a direction to direct the first respondent to settle the salary of the writ petitioner for the month of January 2018 by considering the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 9.2.2018. 4. The relief sought for in the second writ petition, namely, WP No. 20139 of 2018 is for a direction to direct the first respondent to treat the writ petitioner as on leave from 1.2.2018 to 30.6.2018 and pay salary for January 2018 and join as Junior Executive in the respondent-Cooperative Society. 5. Thus, the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are to pay salary for the month of January 2018. The writ petitioner is working as Junior Executive in the respondent-Cooperative Society, which is a registered Society under the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act. The writ petitioner has chosen to file two writ petitions through different counsels claiming the same relief. 6. Thus, the attempt taken by the writ petitioner is nothing but an abuse of judicial process and this apart, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner Mr. P. Sankar approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) by raising an Industrial Dispute. The Industrial Dispute raised by the writ petitioner was taken on file and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai issued notice, directing the Management, namely, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Employees Cooperative Credit Society, to attend the conciliation proceedings/joint discussions in person or through a duly authorised representative with all relevant records and evidence, oral and documentary, on 8.4.2019. 7. Thus, the writ petitioner has not only approached the High Court by filing two writ petitions for the same relief, but also approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) for conciliation by raising the Industrial Dispute. 8. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner has abused the judicial process and accordingly liable to pay costs. 9. 8. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner has abused the judicial process and accordingly liable to pay costs. 9. The grievances of the writ petitioner are now under adjudication before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who is the competent authority and he is at liberty to adjudicate the same for the redressal of his grievances. However, in respect of his conduct in filing two separate writ petitions in WP Nos. 4661 of 2018 and 20139 of 2018 in respect of the same relief, the writ petitioner is directed to pay the costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority, on or before 21st April, 2019 and produce the compliance report on 22.4.2019. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 10. Post the writ petitions under the caption “For Compliance” on 22.4.2019.