TAMIL NADU ADI DRAVIDAR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the appellate authority of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. 1947/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein made in TNSE No.2/89, dated 30 -6 -1989 and to quash the same.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of this petition by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, it is averred as follows:

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that he was issued with a charge memo dated 15 -2 -1988 by the petitioner's Corporation, alleging certain misconduct and that he has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 2 -3 -1988. Thereafter, after conducting a farce of an enquiry, his services were terminated abruptly. There was no enquiry worth mentioning. His services were terminated on and from 27 -7 -1988. Against the said order of termination, he preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, who is the appellate authority nominated. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination. It is further stated that the petitioner's Corporation did not raise the objection with regard to the jurisdiction to entertain his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and it participated in the whole of the proceedings without any demur. The only point taken in this writ petition is that the petitioner's Corporation is an establishment under the control of the Government of Tamil Nadu and hence it is exempted under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. It is further submitted that the question as to the jurisdiction of the appellate authority not having been raised specifically before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner's Corporation is precluded or estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue before this Court for the first time in this writ petition. Further the petitioners having participated in the proceedings before the appellate Authority and having accepted the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, it is too late for the petitioners to raise the objection at this stage. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this petition, by contending that the impugned order of the appellate Authority is well made and that the same is not liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.