SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Mad) 282

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMANUJAM
Union Bank of India and Others - Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner For Workmens Compensation and Others - Respondent
Case No : Writ Petition No. 956, 2013, 2014 and 2077 of 1979
Decided On : 15 June 1983

Advocates Appeared:M. R. Narayanaswami, S. Jayaraman, N. Balasubramanian, P. Chandrasekaran, K. Chandrasekaran, N. G. R. Prasada Rao, Advocates.

Nationalised banks are establishments under the Central Government and, therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

Headnote:

SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT - EXEMPTION - NATIONALISED BANKS - WHETHER ESTABLISHMENTS UNDER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 4(1)(C) OF THE TAMIL NADU SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1947.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, nationalised banks, challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, holding that they were not establishments under the Central Government and hence not exempted from the provisions of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the nationalised banks were establishments under the Central Government and, therefore, exempted under section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

Issues: Whether nationalised banks are establishments under the Central Government and hence exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and held that the word "under" in the provision should be interpreted to include the notion of agency or instrumentality. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India to hold that nationalised banks are agencies or instrumentalities of the Central Government.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the appellate authority. In other cases, writs of prohibition were issued.

Judgment :-

RAMANUJAM, J.

Since the points involved in all the writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are nationalised banks and the second respondent in each of the writ petitions is their employee and the first respondent in W.P. No. 956/79 is the Addl. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, and the first respondent in the other writ petitions is the Addl. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, whose orders passed under s. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act has been challenged in these writ petitions. As the facts are substantially the same in all the writ petitions, it is enough if the facts in the first writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 956/79, are dealt with in detail. The second respondent therein was employed as a clerk in the Coimbatore Branch of the Union Bank of India, the petitioner therein. Certain charges were framed against him by a memo dated 6th July, 1973, and after holding a domestic enquiry and after following the procedure set out in the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Bank Employees' Federation and the bank management, he has been dismissed from service by an order of the management dated 8th December, 1974. This order was confirmed later on by the appellate authority of the bank, i.e., the managing director, by an order dated 24th July, 1975. Against the said order, the second respondent had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and the same was taken on file as T.N.S.E. Case No. 11 of 76. In the counter-affidavit filed by the management before the appellate authority, the petitioner-bank had questioned the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to entertain the appeal on the ground that under s. 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, establishments under the Central and State Governments are totally exempted from the applicability of the Shops Act and that the petitioner-bank, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Central Act No. 5/70) (hereinafter referred to as "the 1970 Act"), being an establishment under the Central Govt., the appeal itself was not maintainable. On the said plea, arguments were heard by the appellate authority who ultimately held that the appeal is maintainable as the petitioner-bank is not an establishment under the Central Govt. as contended by the bank, by order dated January 25, 1979. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the first respondent in the writ petition, the bank has approached this court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said preliminary order dated January 25, 1979.According to the petitioner, the appellate authority has erred in law in rejecting the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal and under s. 4(1)(c), the petitioner-bank, as an establishment under the Central Govt., will stand exempted from the provisions of the Shops Act and on a proper reading of the provisions of the Central Act 5 of 1970, the conclusion is inescapable that the corresponding new banks constituted under that Act are clearly establishments under the Central Govt. and consequently, fall outside the Shops Act in view of section 4(1)(c) of that Act. The reasoning given by the appellate authority that only establishments of the Central Govt. are exempted and not establishments under the control of the Central Govt. is erroneous. In any event, an analysis of the provisions of the Central Act 5 of 1970 would show that the ownership of the banks the administration and control of those banks and all their assets vested with the Central Govt. and that as such it will fall under the category of establishments under the Central Govt. referred to in s. 4(1) of the Shops Act. Thus, the main question for consideration is whether the nationalised banks, i.e., banks constituted under A
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top