Employer’s Bid To Stop Employee’s Labour Appeal Fails As Madras HC Says Jurisdiction Objection Was Barred By Earlier Litigation

The Management sought a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings initiated by the second respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

It contended that the employee had resigned in March 2012 and had not been dismissed, so the authority lacked jurisdiction.

In separate proceedings concerning the same Section 41(2) matter, the Management’s order permitting additional evidence was set aside in W.P. No. 24840 of 2021, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

On appeal, the Division Bench allowed the Management’s writ appeal on the condition that it produce a witness for examination and cross-examination, failing which the authority could proceed on the evidence available.

The present writ petition was dismissed.

Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 was the provision under which the employee had initiated proceedings; the Management disputed the authority’s jurisdiction under it.

The Court applied the doctrines of issue estoppel and constructive res judicata, holding that a party cannot raise a jurisdictional point in a later proceeding where that point ought to have been raised and settled in earlier proceedings between the parties concerning the same matter.

The judgment cites no statutory provision or precedent in support of those doctrines.

The Court noted that the earlier writ petition and writ appeal had addressed the conduct of the Section 41(2) proceedings and had resulted in directions for the authority to proceed with the evidence, including the Management’s obligation to produce its witness.

It considered that the Management’s jurisdictional objection should have been raised either in the earlier writ proceedings or before the Division Bench.

Having not done so, the Management was barred from raising it in this writ petition by issue estoppel and constructive res judicata.

The Court therefore did not determine the underlying merits of the resignation or dismissal dispute.

It dismissed W.P. No. 26476 of 2024 and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.