The President, M.S.592, v. The Appellate Authority

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD).No.5645 of 2016 The President, M.S.592, Amarapoondi Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Amarapoondi Post, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Appellate Authority Under Shops and Establishments Act, 1947/ The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

2.M.Ramasamy ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 made in T.N.S.E.A.No.1 of 2015 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For R-1 : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader.

For R-2 : Mr.G.Murugan 1/4

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in T.N.S.E.A.No.1 of 2015 by the first respondent.

2. The second respondent was working as Secretary under the petitioner's Cooperative Society. He was dismissed from service on 30.06.2014 as per the resolution passed in the Executive Committee meeting dated 30.06.2014. The second respondent challenged the dismissal order before the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act and the appeal is numbered as T.N.S.E.A.No.1 of 2015 under Section 41(2) of the said Act. The authority has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner's Society to reinstate the second respondent. Challenging the order passed in the appeal, this Writ Petition is filed and pending Writ Petition, the second respondent was reinstated and he is working in the petitioner's Society. Since the petitioner is reinstated, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought liberty to conduct an enquiry against the second respondent. This Court is not inclined to grant such relief, since the second respondent is already reinstated. The Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent prayed to grant continuity of service and backwages. On perusing the impugned order, it is seen 2/4

that the first respondent has not indicated whether the second respondent is entitled to consequential order. Since the present writ petition is filed by the Management and the second respondent has not challenged the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. More so, in the Management appeal, the second respondent cannot seek any relief. The second respondent ought to have preferred independent appeal, if he is so aggrieved. Hence, the consequential prayer in the Management appeal is declined. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the consequential relief of continuity of service and backwages is left open to the parties to adjudicate.

4. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

10.01.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr To The Appellate Authority Under Shops and Establishments Act, 1947/ The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

3/4

S.SRIMATHY, J.

Nsr 10.01.2023 4/4