1. Since both the writ petitions arose out of the common order passed by the first respondent in TNSE I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 in TNSE 1/2008, dated 02.09.2009, they are taken up together for hearing and decided by this common order.

2. Nutshell facts necessary for the disposal of both these writ petitions, are set out thus:

2.1. The second respondent was appointed as Industrial Officer in the year 1994 in the petitioner Management. He became Senior Manager in the year 2002 and while he was working in the Regional Office in Mumbai, the petitioner Management levelled certain charges against him. A domestic enquiry was conducted, as a result of which, the second respondent was dismissed from service on 24.03.2005. At the time of dismissal from service, the second respondent was working at Anandavadi Branch at Ariyalur District.

2.2. Challenging the order of dismissal, the second respondent filed the appeal before the Chairman of the petitioner Bank as per the provisions of the South Indian Bank Officers' Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2004. The said appeal was rejected and the said order was served on the second respondent on 18.06.2005. He also preferred a second appeal before the Board of Directors, however, with a delay. But, the second appeal also came to be rejected by the Board of Directors on 28.06.2008. The copy of the order passed in the second appeal was received by the second respondent on 11.07.2008.

2.3. Thereafter, the second respondent preferred an appeal petition under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”) before the first respondent. Pending the appeal filed by the second respondent, the petitioners filed two interlocutory applications seeking to raise three preliminary issues to be decided before going into the merits of the appeal, viz.,

(i) whether the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder are applicable to Anandavadi Branch?

(ii) Whether the appeal petition shall be dealt with as per the limitations prescribed under the Act? and

(iii) Whether the appeal petition is barred by the civil suit already filed before the civil Court?.

2.4. The first respondent, on consideration of the materials available on record, dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have come before this Court with the present writ petitions.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent had failed to appreciate applicability of the Act with the petitioner Bank and that in the absence of any notification extending the provisions of the Act, the first respondent could not assume jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act in the case of the second respondent. In support of the said submission, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S.Wadke reported in 1975-2-LLJ-445, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had dealt with the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in regard to the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(ii) The Management of Punjab National Bank v. S.C.Gupta and another reported in 1990-I-LLJ 605 (Mad). The relevant portion in paragraph 6, reads thus:

"We may now refer to the decision reported in Workmen of Sri Ranga Vilas Motors v. S.R.V.Motors (1967-II-LLJ-12) relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent. In that case, the employee working at the Bangalore branch office of a company having its head office at Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu was transferred by the orders of the head office. But the order of transfer was not obeyed, which resulted in the removal of the employee from service, upon which a reference was made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by the State of Karnataka and on an objection being raised that the reference was incompetent, the Supreme Court pointed out that the concerned employee was working in Bangalore at the time of his transfer and the subject-matter of dispute arose with