S.240, Thoppapatti Primary Vs The Presiding Officer

¶1

W.P.No.42518 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.42518 of 2016 and

¶7

WMP.Nos.36430 & 36431 of 2016

¶8

S.240, Thoppapatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Rep. by its President M.Subramani Thoppapati Post, Namagiripetti – Via Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court,

¶12

Salem.

¶13

The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,

¶14

Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶15

K.Sengalvarayan ...Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the I.D.No.108 of 2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶17

Page No.1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.42518 of 2016

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents : R – 1 Court Mr.M.Muthusamy, GA, for R2 No Appearance, for R3 ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the

¶22

proceedings in I.D.No.108 of 2015 on the file of the 1 st respondent.

¶23

2. The short facts are that the 3 rd respondent was employed in the petitioner cooperative society. It is the case of the petitioner society that, the very appointment of the 3 rd respondent was illegal and made against the provisions of Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. Further, the 3 rd respondent was indulging in irregularities and misappropriation and thereby, he was terminated from services on three earlier occasions, however, he was later reinstated. Since the very appointment of the 3 rd respondent was illegal, the petitioner issued a showcause notice dated 23.04.2015 directing the 3 rd respondent to show cause as to why he should not be terminated. As the explanation dated 27.04.2015 submitted by the 3 rd respondent was not satisfactory, after following procedures contemplated under the rule, the 3 rd respondent was ultimately dismissed from service by the petitioner, vide order dated

¶24

Page No.2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.42518 of 2016

¶27

02.05.2015. The 3 rd respondent, challenging the said order of dismissal,

¶28

filed a revision before the 2 nd respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and in turn, the 2 nd respondent allowed the revision and ordered for reinstatement of the 3 rd respondent, vide order dated 03.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner has not given an opportunity to the 3 rd respondent to submit his explanation for the second show cause notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that, parallely, the 3 rd respondent also raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.108 of 2015 before the labour court. In the mean time, as against the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 03.12.2015, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1710 of 2016. Since the 3 rd respondent had resorted to challenge the order of termination before two different forums, the petitioner management has come up with the present Writ petition seeking above relief.

¶29

3. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents placed on record.

¶30

4. Though notice was served and the name of the 3 rd respondent was printed in the cause list, none appeared on his behalf. Considering

¶31

Page No.3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.42518 of 2016

¶34

the period of pendency of this Writ petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same based on the available materials.

¶35

5. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the employee was correct in prosecuting the ID after obtaining an order from the revisional authority directing reinstatement.

¶36

6. Though very many grounds have been raised by the learned counsel on either side at the time of arguments, the 3 rd filed a counter affidavit before this Court, wherein he has admitted that the Industrial dispute was raised inadvertently and has given an undertaking to withdraw the said dispute in I.D.No.108 of 2015. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, the Labour court did not permit the 3 rd respondent to withdraw the said dispute, since, the Writ petition in W.P.No.1710 of 2016 was pending and a stay was granted by this court. Now that writ petition stands disposed of, vide order of this court dated 19.03.2025, the labour court is directed to permit the 3 rd respondent to withdraw the dispute in I.D.No.108 of 2015.

¶37

Page No.4 of 6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.42518 of 2016

¶40

7. The very prayer of the petitioner is only to quash the proceedings in I.D.No.108 of 2015. Now that the deck is cleared, the 3 rd respondent is directed to immediately withdraw the said dispute in I.D.No.108 of 2015. In case, any such application is made by the 3 rd respondent seeking withdrawal of the dispute, the Labour court, Salem is directed to permit the 3 rd respondent to withdraw the ID.

¶41

8. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition

¶42

stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

19.03.2025

¶44

skt

¶45