- (1.)The Appellant/Petitioner has focused the intra Court Writ Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11542 of 2013.
(2.)The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order on 22.12.2014 in W.P. No. 11542 of 2013 in para 18 inter-alia observed the following:
"...this Court is of the view that:-

(i) The first respondent has filed a case in TSE No. 3 of 2011, on the file of second respondent herein to set-aside the termination order which has been issued by the writ petitioner herein. The issue of employment of first respondent is of paramount importance and also the case in TSE No. 3 of 2011 is pending for more than three years at a partly heard stage. Therefore, the said case should be disposed of on merits within a stipulated period, since the first respondent is an aggrieved person and he is entitled for speedy trial as per Article 21 of the Constitution.

(ii) The appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is the proper legal forum available under law to set aside the order of termination by Citibank against the first respondent. It is also seen that no damages are claimed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour nor can they be claimed. This Court is of the view that the suit before the Learned Single Judge in Madras High Court is for damage for treatment meted out to the first respondent by Citibank and this suit does not cover or question the veracity or correctness of the order of termination by Citibank against the first respondent. As such, this Court opines that the above two cases are not parallel proceedings.

(iii) It is only the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who can adjudicate on the appeal filed by the first respondent seeking to set aside his termination order by Citibank. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to award damages. The High Court, on the other hand is the competent Court to conduct the suit where the first respondent has sought damages from the Bank. Therefore, these are two different legal cases at two different but appropriate forums.

(iv) It is also seen that the first respondent herein has been terminated from service in the year 2011 and now the case is pending adjudication for a period of about 4 years. As such, if the said case is disposed of at the earliest on merits, the interest of the writ petitioner would not be, in any way, prejudiced.

(v) The Labour Court Judgment, if passed after trial in TSE No. 3 of 2011, will offer the most suitable solution to decide the civil suit in C.S. No. 81 of 2013, which is pending on the file of this Court. The verdict of the Labour Court will not dent any of the characteristics of civil suit. Besides this, if the Civil Suit is disposed of before deciding the Labour Court Case, it has a distinct possibility of raising lacuna."

and resultantly, dismissed the Writ Petition.

(3.)Further, the Learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition had directed the Second Respondent/Appellate Authority (The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai) to dispose of the pending appeal in TSE. No. 3 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order etc.