Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
C.V. Raman, etc. etc. Appellants
Versus
Management of Bank of India and another, etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4291 - 4292, 4329, 4735 and 837 of 1984, 1120 of 1976 and 1042 of 1979, D/- 21-4-1988.
AND
State Banks Staff Union Madras Circle, Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India, Respondent.
AND
A.Manickavasagam and Others, Appellants
Versus
State Bank of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Syndicate Bank, Appellant
Versus
P.O. Labour Court, Guntur and others, Respondents.
AND
Syndicate Bank, Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Guntur and others, Respondents.
AND
Bank of India, Appellant
Versus
P.A. Stalin and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. N. Bhatt, Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate; Ms. R. Vegai, Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Ravinder Bhatt, Mr. K. V. Mohan, Mr. S. R. Setia, Mr. Raj Birbal, Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Mr. R. P. Kapoor, Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Mr. G. N. Rao, Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Mr. M. A. Firoz, Mr. P. K. Pilai, Mr. C.V. Subba Rao, Mr. M. Satyanarain Rao and G. Narasimhalu Advocates with them, for appearing parties.
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 – Section 41(2) – Appeals raise an identical question and are as such being decided by a common judgment. Before coming to the question involved in these appeals it would be necessary to give in brief the facts of each of these cases to indicate the circumstances in which the said question arises. Civil Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ, Appeals, the appellant in these two appeals was an employee in the Bank of India which is a Nationalised – Bank – He was dismissed from service in pursuance of disciplinary action for certain charges framed against him – Aggrieved he preferred an appeal of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 – Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Bank of India to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops Act was not applicable to the Bank in view of the provisions contained thereof which exempted inter alia an establishment under the Central Government from the purview of that Act –Held, As regards the first reason referred to above we have already pointed out that even if the decisions dealing of the Constitution are not made the foundation for deciding the point in issue, the principles enumerated therein referred to above particularly with regard to deep and pervasive control are relevant for deciding the point in issue – As regards the second reason referred to above suffice it to point out that for holding that the State Bank of India and the nationalised banks are establishments under the Central Government which have a corporate structure and have freedom in the matter of day to day administration it is not necessary that these banks should be owned by the Central Government or be under its absolute control in the sense of a department of the Government – With regard to the last reason namely the circumstance that even though Reserve Bank of India is mentioned specifically in the relevant clause containing exemption neither State Bank of India nor the nationalised banks are so mentioned, it may be pointed out that the Reserve Bank of India was established as Shareholders Bank – As seen above, the Kerala Shops Act and the Andhra Pradesh Shops Act which are of the years 1960 and 1966 respectively were modelled almost on the pattern of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act which S. 4(1)(c) of this Act referred to the Reserve Bank of India in 1947 it obviously referred to it as Sharesholders Bank – Order accordingly.
Judgment
OJHA, J. :- These appeals raise an identical question and are as such being decided by a common judgment. Before coming to the question involved in these appeals it would be necessary to give in brief the facts of each of these cases to indicate the circumstances in which the said question arises. Civil Appeals Nos. 4291-4292 of 1984 have been preferred against the judgment dated 18th April, 1984 of the Madras High Court in Writ, Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983 (Reported in (1984) 2 Lab LJ 34). C. V. Raman, the appellant in these two appeals was an employee in the Bank of India which is a Nationalised. Bank. He was dismissed from service in pursuance of disciplinary action for certain charges framed against him. Aggrieved he preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Shops Act). A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Bank of India to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops Act was not applicable to. the Bank in view of the provisions contained in Section 4(1)(c) thereof which exempted inter alia an establishment under the Central Government from the purview of that Act. The appellate authority, however, took the view that it was a case where the preliminary objection may be decided along with the appeal. The Bank of India thereupon filed two writ petitions in the High Court being Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. The prayer contained in Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the preliminary objection before taking up the appeal for hearing on merits. In Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 on the other hand a prayer was made for the issue of writ of prohibition directing the Appellate Authority not to proceed with the appeal. Both these writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court accepting the plea raised by the Bank of India that it was an establishment under the Central Government and consequently the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act were not applicable to it in view of the exemption contained in this behalf in Section 4(1)(c). The two writ appeals referred to above were filed by the appellant against the decision in the aforesaid writ petitions which, however, were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment which is under appeal in these two civil appeals. By the same judgment a Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed Writ Petition No. 1550 of 1981. The petitioners of the said writ petition who were employees of the State Bank of India made an application under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act before the Commissioner of Labour with a request to hold that all the provisions of that Act would apply to them as persons employed in the State Bank of India. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State Bank of India that it was an establishment under the Central Government within the meaning of Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act and consequently the provisions of that Act were not applicable to it. The Commissioner of Labour, however, rejected the plea of the State Bank of India and held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to it. It is this order of the Commissioner of Labour which was sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari in writ petition No. 1550 of 1981. On the view that the State Bank of India was also an establishment under the Central Government the writ petition was allowed. Civil Appeal No. 4329 of 1984 has been preferrred against the said judgment by the State Banks Staff Union whereas Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 1984 has been preferred by the employees concerned.
2. Civil Appeal No. 1120 of l976 has been preferred against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 3rd February, 1976 in Writ Appeal No. 268 of 1975 upholding the order of a learned single Judge dated 14th November, 1974 in Writ Petition No. 5973 o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
