The court emphasized the requirement for the appellate authority to consider all relevant materials and evidence, and the need for a speaking order reflecting application of mind.

1. The 2nd respondent was originally appointed as Manager in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited on 26.05.1986. Between 14.06.1994 and 19.08.1997, he was working as Branch Manager at Calicut Branch of the said Bank. In respect of certain misconduct said to have been committed by him, a charge sheet was issued to him on 23.02.1996. Denying the same, the 2nd respondent submitted his explanation on 23.03.1996. Thereafter, an additional charge sheet was issued on 28.03.1996, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.04.1996 thereby denying the additional charges also. Not satisfied with the said explanations, an enquiry officer was appointed to hold an enquiry into the charges. Totally, as many as 23 charges were framed against him. On completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 11.07.1997 holding as many as 13 charges were proved. He held the other charges not proved. Based on the same, a second show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to submit his further explanation. Accordingly, he did. Thereafter, by order dated 19.08.1997, he was terminated from service. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] before the appellate authority , the 1st respondent herein.

2. Before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent examined himself as P.W.1. 58 documents were marked on his side. During the course of cross examination , on the side of the management as many as 50 documents were marked. Having considered all the above, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.02.2000 thereby setting aside the order of dismissal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also perused the records carefully.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, the focus of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is mainly on the ground that the impugned order of the 1st respondent reflects that there was total non application of mind on his part. The learned counsel would further submit that though several documents were marked on the side of the management as well as the petitioner and though oral evidence was let in by the petitioner, they have not at all been considered by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has failed to take into account the relevant materials placed by way of evidence. Thus, according to him, the impugned order is perverse warranting interference at the hands of this Court.

5. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has taken me through the entire impugned order and he would point out that there was no reference at all anywhere in the order about the documents produced in evidence as well as the oral evidence.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Srirangam Janopakara Bank, Limited v. Rangarajan and another, 1964 (1) LLJ 221 wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:-

"By making the scope of the appeal sufficiently wide and comprehensive it will be possible for the aggrieved party to obtain redress in the appellate Court, namely, the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation , who, functioning in a judicial capacity, holds the balance even between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other hand. For that purpose, it may be necessary for him to take additional evidence in the interest of justice and for the purpose of giving an adequate and binding decision. The power of the appellate authority under Section 41(2) of the Act should be construed in the widest manner possible, so as to take in also the power to take additional evidence, where the needs of the case call for it."

7. The learned counsel would rely on yet another judgement of the Honble Supre