S.N.D.Sampath v. Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.09.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.22397 OF 2004ANDWP.MP.NOS.1690 OF 2006S.N.D.Sampath ...PetitionerVs.1.Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947) D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.2.The Management of M.R.F.Ltd.,represented by its Chairman andManaging Director,Registered Office124, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.3.The Senior General Manager,(Human Resources & Services) M.R.F.Ltd., 124, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.4.Mr.K.Jose,Operation Manager (West)M.R.F.Ltd.,Poonam Chambers, Dr.Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai 400 018.5.Mr.Sabu Varghese,Office Manager,M.R.F. Ltd., (District Office)Poonam Chambers, Dr.Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai 400 018. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.The General Manager (Marketing Operations)M.R.F.Ltd.,124, Greams Road,Chennai 600 006. . ..RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated within.For Petitioner: Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.P.ChandrasekaranFor Respondent 1 : Mr.N.Senthil KumarAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondents No.2 to 6 :M/s Ramasubramaniam AssociatesO R D E R The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition seeking toissue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of thefirst respondent in TSE IA No.12 of 2003 in TSE No.4 of 2003 dated23.12.2003 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent todispose of the appeal on merits.2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused.3. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner and also looked into the materials available on record, itcould be seen that the petitioner joined service of the respondent companyat its Registered Office at Chennai on 02.06.1980 as Clerk-cum-Typist atBangalore and was confirmed in January 1981 and he was subsequentlypromoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1983 and he was transferred toBelgaum and he was promoted as Senior Assistant and transferred toMangalore in the year 1988 and in the year 1996, he was promoted asManagement Assistant MS-1. From Mangalore, he was transferred to Panaji,Goa in the year 2001. He was in the sale Depot at Panaji, Goa, While hewas attending clerical work relating to sales, on 18.1.2003, the OperationManager (West), the fourth respondent herein and Mr.Sabu Varghese, OfficeManager in the District Office, Mumbai, the 5th respondent herein came tothe depot and asked from him a letter of resignation saying that thecompany has lost confidence in him and threatened either to resign or face https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the consequences. He had no intention of resigning, but however due to thepressure exerted on him, he gave the letter of resignation and thereafterhe rushed to Chennai and met the General Manager(Marketing) and told thatthe resignation letter was obtained under threat and he did not want toresign from service. He gave representation to the superiors about thesame and also to the higher-ups stating that the the resignation letterwas obtained from him under coersion and stated that he was withdrawingthe resignation letter and he also sent the same by fax on 24.01.2003with a copy to the District Manger (Mumbai)and also to the ExecutiveDirector (Marketing), the General Manager(Marketing) and the Chief GeneralManager (Human Resource and Service),Chennai. After having got thewithdrawal letter withdrawing the resignation, on 25.01.2003 thepetitioner received a telegram from the third respondent accepting theresignation and he also sent a letter dated 4.2.2003 confirming thecontents of the said telegram. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred anappeal before the first respondent along with condonation of delay of 6days in filing the appeal challenging the decision of the respondentmanagement purportedly treating him as having resigned from service.Subsequently, the respondent management had filed their preliminaryobjection on the maintainability of the said appeal. The first respondent,on enquiry, has upheld the preliminary objections of the respondentManagement and directed the petitioner to make his appeal before theauthority at Goa under the Goa Shops and Establishment Act. Aggrieved overthe same, the above writ petition has been brought forth by the petitionerbefore this Court.5. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on theabove contentions. 6. According to the counsel for the during the relevant time,when he tendered his resignation, he was actually working in the companyin Goa . Thereafter, though he has withdrawn his resignation fromChennai, the challenge has to be made only before the authority at Goaunder the Goa Shops and Establishment Act at Chennai. Hence, theobjections raised by the respondent management is correct and the writpetition has got to be dismissed.7. The Court paid its anxious consideration of the submissionsmade.8. The order of the first respondent has to be quashed on theshort ground that originally the petitioner was appointed in Chennai andduring the relevant point of time he was put in service at Goa and underthe compelled circumstances, the resignation letter was obtained from himand thereafter he rushed to Chennai and sent the withdrawal of hisresignation taking into consideration the fact that he got cause of actionto challenge the same in both the places and non acceptance of thewithdrawal of the resignation either at Goa or at Chennai under therespective Shops and Establishment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has relied on a decision reported in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Others Vs.Novartis India Ltd., & another (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 591) whereinit has been held that where cause of action arising in more than one Statein respect of the jurisdiction to refer and entertain an Industrialdispute, the State Government of the State, where part of cause actionwould arise, would also have jurisdiction to make the reference. Applyingthe said ratio ,this Court is of the considered opinion that the firstrespondent has got jurisdiction to entertain the matter between theparties and hence the order of the first respondent is set aside with adirection to the first respondent to take up afresh and proceed on meritsand pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.9.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposedof. No costs. Consequently, WP.MP.No.1690 of 2006 is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.VJYTo1. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947) D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.2. The Chairman andManaging Director, The Management of M.R.F.Ltd.,Registered Office124, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Senior General Manager,(Human Resources & Services) M.R.F.Ltd., 124, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.4. The General Manager (Marketing Operations)M.R.F.Ltd.,124, Greams Road,Chennai 600 006. . + 1 CC To Mr. P.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR NO.57243+ 1 CC To Mr. S.Ramasubramanian Associates, SR NO.57228W.P.NO.22397 OF 2004ANDWP.MP.NOS.1690 OF 2006la[co]gp/1.10.