The Chief Justice.- This application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, has been filed in the following circumstances. C.G. Sarma, the second respondent herein was an employee of the United Commercial Bank, Ltd., at its Mathurai branch. His services were dispensed with by the bank on 30th June, 1949 on the ground that he misbehaved towards a respectable constituent to the Bank and that this conduct both inside and outside the office was extremely unsatisfactory. He preferred an appeal against this order of dismissal to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, under section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). That section runs thus:

“41. (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 inquiry 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.”

By orders of the Central Government, dated 13th June, 1949 and 28th September, 1949 the industrial disputes between certain banking companies mentioned in schedule 1 annexed to the order including their branches and their employees were referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. On 21st February, 1950 a notification was published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi, in and by which the Central Government in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947) referred certain further industrial disputes which had arisen after the 13th June, 1949 or were apprehended between the banking companies mentioned in schedule 1 annexed thereto and their employees in respect of matters specified in schedule II annexed thereto. One of the banks mentioned in schedule 1 is the United Commercial Bank, Ltd., the applicant before us. Schedule II was in these general terms:

“(1) Retrenchment, discharge or dismissal of workmen after the 13th June, 1949 (specific cases to be cited by employees).

(2) Stoppage of increments and withholding of promotions (specific cases to be cited by ememployees).”

The schedule contained a note that the list was not intended to be exhaustive. In pursuance of this later notification the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta gave directions that the employees should deliver their statements of claims to the office of the Tribunal at Calcutta concerning matters referred to adjudication on 15th March, 1950 and should give a copy thereof to the employers on the same day. The employers were directed to deliver within ten days thereafter their written statement in answer to the said claims and give a copy thereof to the employees concerned.

It is common ground that neither the second respondent nor any union on his behalf delivered a statement of claim as regards his dismissal.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Banking and Insurance Companies) Act, 1949. The Commissioner overruled the objection holding that the Act did not affect the rights of the employee under section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act of 1947. He therefore posted the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document