Ramakrishnan, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in Writ Petition No. 380 of 1960. The petitioner, S. Rangarajan, was employed under respondent 1, the Srirangam Janopakara Bank, Ltd., Srirangam, as its secretary, with effect from 17 October, 1953. On 16 May, 1954, the board of directors framed certain charges against him and kept him under suspension pending enquiry. He was asked to show cause against disciplinary action, and he submitted his explanation on 19 May and again on 24 May, 1954. On 10 June, 1954, at 12 noon, he was informed that the board of directors would hold an enquiry into his case at 6 p.m. Subsequently, the board of directors, by a resolution, found the petitioner guilty, and removed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order, to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, under S.41(2) of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the initial stage there was a controversy as to whether the petitioner was actually present at the enquiry. The Additional Commissioner expressed the opinion that, though the petitioner was present at the enquiry, he was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, and that, further, the charges were not borne out by the evidence. He allowed the appeal. The bank filed Writ Petition No. 200 of 1956, which came up before Rajagopalan, J. He, Rajagopalan, J., quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner and in effect the Additional Commissioner had to re-hear the appeal and dispose it of according to law. The Additional Commissioner thereafter re-heard the appeal. In the course of that re-hearing, he took additional evidence. Thereafter, he dismissed the appeal upholding the order removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner then filed the present Writ petition for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner which came up before Veeraswami, J.He put forward three points in support :

(1) the proceedings of the board of directors culminating in the removal of the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice,

(2) no evidence was recorded at the enquiry before the board of directors as required by S.41(1) of the Act, and that the findings of the board of directors were therefore not based on evidence, and

(3) in any case, the Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in taking additional evidence and disposing of the appeal on that basis.

The learned Judge held that the enquiry before the board of directors of the bank was vitiated for the reason that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner, to defend himself, that two out of the thirteen directors who held the enquiry were biased persons in that, in regard to the allegations in some of the charges that the petitioner was guilty of refusing to co-operate with these two directors when they formed a sub-committee for scrutinizing the accounts and he also behaved in a disorderly manner towards them. The statements of these two directors were taken behind the petitioner's back and he was not supplied with a copy of their statements. The learned Judge next found that at the enquiry held on 10 June, 1954, no evidence was actually recorded. Therefore, the resolution of the board of directors removing the petitioner from the service did not comply with terms of S.41(1) of the Act, which reads :

"No employer shall dispense with the services of a person ... except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person 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 person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose." *

The learned Judge quashed the order of the board of directors of the bank, removing the petitioner from service. It was pointed out to us - in our opinion rightly - that the prayer in the Writ