Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 23.02.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANWrit Petition (MD).No.2048 of 2011 S.Arulsamy. . PetitionerVs.

Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

Sivagangai District Consumers Cooperative, Wholesale Stores Limited, Rep. by its Special Officer/Deputy Registrar, Sivagangai. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the order in TNSE 6/2009 passed by the Appellate Authorityunder the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Madurai, dated14.12.2010 and consequently directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner as Salesman and pass any such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit. For Petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi RoyFor Respondents: Mr.V.Rajasekaran for R1Special Government PleaderMr.P.K.Rajendran Additional Government PleaderORDERMr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.P.K.Rajendran, learned Additional GovernmentPleader takes notice for the second respondent.2. Since the writ petition is for a limited relief to direct the appellate authority and by consent of learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

The petitioner sought a direction in this writ petition to direct the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and EstablishmentsAct, to give effect the order, made in TNSE No.6 of 2009, dated14.12.2010 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Salesman.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Salesmanin the Shop No.2 Checkakalai Karaikudi City Fair Price Shop and he was suspended by the second respondent by order, dated 11.03.2008 and he had challenged the said suspension order by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.5612 of 2008 and this Court was pleased to pass an order of reinstatement by setting aside the suspension order, without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2prejudice to the passing of final orders in the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. The second respondent reinstated the petitioner vide order, dated 31.07.2008. While so, the second respondent passed the dismissal order in Na.Ka.No.142 of 2008, dated 10.09.2008based on the domestic enquiry held by the enquiry officer over a charge memo issued to the petitioner on the allegation that he sold the civil supply articles, which was meant for distribution to the card holders and he is not a trustworthy person in administering the Fair Price Shop and he spoiled the reputation of the Fair Price Shop. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has passed an order setting aside the order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the first respondent to give effect to the order of the appellate authority. Pendingconsideration of the same, he approached this Court for the above direction.

After elaborate arguments and discussions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a plea that if a direction is given to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation, the petitioner grievance would be redressed. The learned Special GovernmentPleader submits that the authority may be directed to dispose of the representation with a reasonable time.