Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, dated 1st November, 1955. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. Messrs. Kemp and Co. Ltd,, the contesting respondent in this appeal, is a company with its head office at Bombay. It has a branch at Madras. The petitioner was appointed as the Branch Manager of the Madras Branch of the Company some time in 1950. The appellant’s services were terminated with effect from 28th August, 1953. He was given a month’s salary in lieu of notice and an additional payment ex gratia. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (XXXVI of 1947). A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the company that the appeal was not competent on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act as he was a person who fell within section 4(1) (a) of the Act which runs thus:

4(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to (a) persons employed in any establishment in a position of management.

The Commissioner held that the appellant is not a person who fell within that provision. He therefore overruled the preliminary objection. The company filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner holding that the appeal was competent. That petition was allowed by Rajagopalan, J., who held that before the appellant had the right to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner, it was necessary for him to establish that he was a person employed within the meaning of section 2(12) of the Act and as that question was not decided by the Commissioner he set aside the order of the Commissioner. The result was the whole question remained to be gone into afresh by the Commissioner. When the case went back to the Commissioner, he held that the appellant was a person employed as defined in section 2 (12) of the Act but he was a person who was employed in a position of management and therefore the Act would not apply to him because of the provisions of section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. As a result of his finding, he held that the appeal was not maintainable. It is to quash this order of the Commissioner that the writ petition was filed, out of which this appeal arises.

It was not contended before us that the appellant was not a “person employed” within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the Act. The only question, therefore, which falls for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant is a person who is employed in a position of management. The Commissioner held that he was such a person because he was acting in general management and control of the establishment in Madras. He apparently relied on the following facts which emerge from the evidence, namely, that the appellant was in charge of the correspondence of the Madras Branch, supervised the work of the clerks employed therein, operated on the No. 2 bank account of the firm, made payments, entered into agreements with third parties on behalf of the firm and generally represented the company at Madras. He granted leave to the staff and appointed some of them. In all the correspondence, the appellant was styling himself as Manager for Madras. His name was not entered in the register of employees maintained under the Act. He never signed in any such register nor was his name to be found in the muster rolls where the names of all the employees of the firm were noted. The learned Judge Rajagopalan J., held on the facts that the Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was in a position of management. On the evidence, the learned Judge did not find himself able to set aside t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document