The exemption notification affected the competency of the appeal, and the appellate authority lost its jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute when the scheduled commercial Banks were exempted from the operation of the Act.

1. The short question that arises for determination in all these cases is whether appeals under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, could be continued against scheduled commercial Banks after these Banks were exempted "from all the provisions of the said Act" by a general notification issued during the pendency of the appeal. A learned single judge of this Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Appellate Authority (1986 KLT.1394) ruled that there was no jurisdiction for the appellate authority to proceed with the appeal. Writ Appeal No. 860 of 1986 is against this decision. There are two writ petitions filed by another Back, and raising the same question. They have been referred to a Division Bench to be heard along with the Writ Appeal. We shall, therefore advert to the relevant facts in the writ appeal.

2. The appellant was an employee of the Catholic Syrian Bank, a scheduled commercial Bank, His services were terminated by the Bank on 22nd September, 1978 and immediately thereafter he filed an appeal under S.18 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode. In 1982, the Government exempted all scheduled Commercial Banks from all the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (the Act). The Bank, the employer, therefore, contended that appellate authority has lost its jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal and the appeal had to be dismissed as not maintainable on that ground. The authority overruled the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and decided the appeal on merits, set aside the order of termination passed against the appellant, directed his re-instatement with continuity of service and back wages amounting to Rs. 32,095/- If the appellant was not reinstated, the Bank was directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation in addition to the back wages. The Back challenged these orders in a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. This writ petition was allowed by the learned judge holding that the appellate authority ceased to have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of appeal, in view of the general exemption notified by the Government. This appeal, therefore, raises only the question of jurisdiction of the appellate authority dependant on the exemption notification.

3. The appeal against termination of services of an employee of a commercial establishment is provided in S.18 of the Act. S.18 (1), (2) & (3), relevant for our purpose, reads thus:

"18. Notice of Dismissal.-(1) No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such employee at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an inquiry held for the purpose.

(2) Any employee whose services are dispensed with may appeal to such authority and within such time as may be prescribed either on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services or on the ground that be had not been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer.

(3) The appellate authority may, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer and the employee, dismiss the appeal or direct the reinstatement of the employee with or without wages for the period he was kept out of employment or direct payment of compensation without reinstatement or grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

4. It is admitted that the Catholic Syrian Bank was a "commercial establishment" as defined in the Act. On the date when the appellant's services were terminated and on the date when the appeal was filed under the Act, the provisions of the Act applied to the Bank and the appeal was competent under the Act.

5.