Religious charity and religious endowment.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 28th February, 1956 in O.S. No. 1222 of 1954 on his file. The plaintiff was employed as a clerk in the defendant-bank. On 29th June, 1951, the plaintiff was served with an order that his services were terminated with immediate effect. He had been in the service of the bank from 1939 and was, in the matter of removal from service, entitled to the protection granted by section 41 of the Madras. Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 41 is in these terms:

“(1) No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, 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.

(2) The person employed shall have a right to 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 he had not been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer.

(3) The decision of the appellate authority shall be final and binding on both the employer and the person employed.”

From the order terminating his services, the plaintiff appealed to the Additional Comsionor for Workmen’s Compensation, the authority prescribed by the Government in that behalf under section 41 (2) of the Act. The Additional Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation, after hearing both parties, passed an order on 22nd October, 1951, setting aside the order of the defendant, dated 29th June, 1951. On receiving the appellate order, the plaintiff presented himself in the office of the defendant-bank on 5th November, 1951 and said that he was reporting himself for duty. The bank told him by letter, dated 5th November, 1951, that he had been advised on 29th June, 1951, that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and that the bank still did not require his services. The plaintiff went and filed a complaint before the Presidency Magistrate (C.C. No. 10298 of 1951) against the defendant of an offence punishable under section 45 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act.

Section 45 (1) is in these terms:

"Any employer who contravenes any of the provisions of sections 7, 9 to 11, 13 to 23, 25, 26, 29 to 41 and 47 shall be punishable, for a first offence, with fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees, and for a second or subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees."

In relation to section 41, section 45 (1) may be thus rendered

"Any employer who dispenses with the services of a person employed under him otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 41 shall be punishable................"

On that complaint, summons was served on the defendant-bank. The Manager appeared and pleaded guilty. He was fined Rs. 20 by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate by his Judgment dated 5th January, 1952.

The plaintiff applied to the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Bombay, praying that the defendant-bank be directed to take the plaintiff into its services in pursuance of the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The Industrial Tribunal does not appear to have passed any orders on the plaintiff’s application.

The plaintiff filed a writ petition in this Court W.P. No. 538 of 1952 praying that the defendant-bank be directed to reinstate him in service. This Court (Govinda Menon, J) held in Mohanakrishnaiah Naidu v. National Bank of India and another1, following the observations of Lord Goddard, Lord Chief Justice, in Rex v. The National Arbitration Tribunal Ex parte Horatio Crowther and Co., Ltd.2, that the Court could not compel a private employer to employ a work