P VIJAYARAJAN Vs. COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

(2.) THE present writ appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1290 of 1997. THE brief narration of the history of the case is required to be made. THE present appellant was an employee under the respondent-Co-operative Stores. On 15-06-198 5 , an interview of the second respondent was published in a Tamil magazine thuglak. THEreafter, the management thought it fit to initiate the departmental proceedings against the present appellant and an order of dismissal was passed. At that stage, the appellant instead of persuing any statutory remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act filed W. P. No. 13070 of 1986. THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not being maintainable. THE matter was challenged under W. A. No. 1410 of 1987, which was also dismissed on 27-10-198 9 on the very same ground. THEreafter, the appellant filed S. L. P. No. 6449 of 1990 and this was also dismissed on 25-10-199 1. However, it was observed, it is open to the petitioner to seek such relief as is open to him under law and plead for condonation of delay. THEreafter, the appellant filed a revision application under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Such revision application was admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation. THE Revisional Authority held that there was no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days and accordingly the revision application was not entertained and was dismissed at the threshold. Subsequently, the appellant filed review application under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. However, the authority held that there was no ground to review the earlier order. THEreafter, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act with a petition for condonation of delay. THE long delay in filing such appeal was condoned by the appellate authority and subsequently, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and held that the order of dismissal was invalid. At this stage, the Management filed two writ petitions, one, W. P. No. 1290 of 1997 directed against the final order of the appellate authority allowing the appeal and the other, W. P. No. 1291 of 1997 directed against the order of the appellate authority dated 19-12-1994 condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. A common order was passed in these writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge allowed w. P. No. 1290 of 1997 and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and dismissed W. P. No. 1291 of 1997. Against the order passed in W. P. No. 1290 of 1997, the present appeal has been filed by the employee.

(3.) THE next preliminary objection on the part of the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent is to the effect that after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant had approached the revisional Authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 by filing a revision under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Societies Act and thereafter, such revision having been rejected he had filed a review application under Section 154 of the Tamilnadu Societies Act and the decision or order passed under section 153/154 had become final and such order could not be challenged any further. It is also contended by him that having elected to approach the forum under the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, the appellant was precluded from approaching the Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and establishments Act.