HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Asst. General Manager – HRMG, Mumbai - Appellant
Versus
A. Vaiyaphuri & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. No. 37846 of 2003
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act - Jurisdiction - Section 41(2) - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 18.12.2003 made by the 2nd respondent in T.S.E.I/I.A./I/10/2003 in T.S.E.I./28/2002 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Chennai 600 006.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank, terminated the services of the first respondent, who then filed an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act before the second respondent. The petitioner contended that the appeal was not maintainable and prohibited under law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal filed by the first respondent before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Chennai was not maintainable and prohibited under law, quashing the same.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that the appeal filed by the first respondent was not maintainable under the Act due to lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 18.12.2003 made by the 2nd respondent in T.S.E.I/I.A./I/10/2003 in T.S.E.I./28/2002 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Chennai 600 006.)
1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 18.12.2003 made by the 2nd respondent in T.S.E.I/I.A./I/10/2003 in T.S.E.I./28/2002 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Chennai 600 006.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-
The petitioner is a Bank incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the banking and related activities having Branches all over India. The first respondent joined the services of the erstwhile Bank of Madura at Corporate Office on 24.04.1978 and the 1st respondent was in the employment of the commercial establishment of ICICI Bank situated at Cochin. In fact the 1st respondent was working for the petitioner bank in the State of Kerala from the year 1994 till the date of termination of his services. In other words the employee was employed for the purpose of the business of the establishment of the bank situated in the State of Kerala. The first respondent had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the order of termination passed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed IA for leading of evidence to establish the reasonableness of the preliminary objection/counter of the petitioner. The second respondent dismissed the above I.A. on 18.12.2003. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner Bank has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent was employed as a Branch Manager in NR Road Branch Road, Bangalore from 17.01.1994 to 25.05.1996 and thereafter he was transferred to Kollam Branch on 05.06.1996 and again was transferred from Kollam to Ernakulam on 11.06.1997. The first respondent was suspended on 05.12.1997 at Ernakulam and that charge sheet was issued from Chennai on 23.09.1998 and reply was received from the first respondent on 01.10.1998. The enquiry was held on 19.02.2000 at Bangalore and all subsequent proceedings were held at Bangalore and that the disciplinary authority issued the finding vide his letter dated 13.03.2002 from Mumbai and request for reply by the first respondent was sent to the Mumbai Office. Thereafter an order of dismissal was passed by Senior Executive Vice President dated 18.04.2002 from Mumbai and that an appeal dated 15.05.2002 was addressed to the Managing Director, Mumbai. He further submitted that the first respondent has preferred an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act before the second respondent which is not maintainable and prohibited under law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1500 of 1988 in the case of The Management of Punjab National Bank Vs S.C.Gupta and others and the relevant portion is extracted as hereunder:-
Labour and Industrial – Industrial undertaking – Section 2 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 41 (2) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 – issue related to jurisdiction with reference to maintainability of appeal preferred by first respondent before second respondent under Section 41(2) – first respondent had no connection with State of Tamil Nadu on and from 29.10.1983 – when order of termination passed no question of any part of cause of action arose within State of Tamil Nadu – no nexus between prior proceedings and order of termination of services of first respondent – prior proceedings in Madras resulted in order of termina
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947.
The appellate authority must ensure proper jurisdiction and procedural fairness in employment dismissal cases while providing detailed findings on all charges.
The court emphasizes the necessity of procedural compliance and proper review of termination orders under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.
The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act is not applicable to cooperative bank employees governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, establishing the primacy of special laws over general....
The exemption granted to factories under G.O. Ms. No. 545 dated February 10, 1950, from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, applies to establishments governed by the ....
Special Co-operative Societies Act and bye-laws exclude Shops Act jurisdiction for employee disciplinary appeals in co-operative banks.
Special Co-operative Societies Act prevails over general Shops Act; appeal under Shops Act Section 41 not maintainable for co-operative bank employees.
The appellate authority under Section 41(2) retains the power to modify disciplinary sanctions and must ensure proportionality while addressing misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.