Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Monday, Jun 25, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry & Economy
-
Courts/Legal Issues States - Tamil Nadu `Worker has right to choose more than one forum seeking justice' Our Legal Correspondent
Chennai June 24 An aggrieved worker has a right to choose more than one forum to seek justice, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has ruled. Setting aside an order of the Appellate Authority, Madurai, under the TN Shops and Establishments Act, refusing to condole delay on the part of petitioner, Mr Justice K. Chandru said that the question of choosing only one forum did not arise. Only a decision of one forum would terminate the other proceedings. Petitioner G. Kesavan was a salesman in 2nd respondent (Ramanathapuram Dt Consumer Co-op Wholesale Stores Ltd) and he was dismissed from service on June 18, 1997. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, and it was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Madurai. For reasons known to the petitioner, he allowed matter to be dismissed for default of appearance. The petitioner did not do anything for a certain period, and during that time, he was persuading management to restore his service. Since management did not agree to request, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the TN Shops and Establishments Act, before the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority under the TN Shops & Establishments Act). As there was a delay of 3,069 days in filing an appeal, he filed an appeal to condone the said delay. The 1st respondent by order dated August 28, 2006, refused to condole delay.
Main ground
The main ground taken by 2nd respondent, and accepted by 1st respondent, was that the petitioner having chosen the forum of the Labour Court, could not abandon it and proceed to file an appeal. In view of `doctrine of election', and petitioner having chosen a forum, he should stand or fall by outcome of that proceedings. Citing an order of the Supreme Court, the judge allowed the petition and said the order passed by the 1st respondent was clearly illegal. Hence, the order had to be set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to take up the appeal filed by petitioner, and number same and decide issue on merits in accordance with the law.
More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Human Resources | Tamil Nadu
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|