The appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from employees of co-operative societies governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and dismissal orders lacking evidence of misconduct are unsustainable.

ORDER :

 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. All these Writ Petitions are connected to each other and as such, are taken up and disposed of together by this common order.

2. The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited. While so, it was found that one Sakthivel, who was appointed as a Jewel Appraiser, had played fraud on the bank by keeping fake jewels in 89 packets with reference to the jewel loan issued to the customers and thus, caused loss to the bank. As a matter of fact, a criminal complaint was lodged in respect of the entire episode and only the Jewel Appraiser, R.Sakthivel, is being prosecuted in the criminal case. Similarly, surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983, was also initiated, in which also, surcharge order is passed only against the said order Jewel Appraiser and the concerned individuals, who obtained loan.

3. While so, the four workmen, involved in this case, K.Kameena, who is an Assistant in the particular branch, T.Muthuraja, the Bank Inspector, K.Mahalakshmi, Sub-Accountant, M.Indira Gandhi, Assistant, who are all working in the branch and sanctioned/disbursed some of the loans and processed those loans in which the fake jewels were involved, were issued with the charge memorandum containing 13 charges. All the charges relate to the fact that the workmen, being the employees of the Co-operative Society, ought to have independently verified the quality of the jewels which they have not done and the further charge is that they colluded with the Jewel Appraiser and caused loss to the society and they failed to verify the genuineness of the loan applicants. All these employees submitted that except for performing their part of the role in sanctioning and processing the loan, they did not know of the fraud being played by the said Sakthivel. They denied that they were in collusion or being beneficiary of such fraud being played. Domestic Enquiries were conducted on the charges and all the charges were held to be proved in the Enquiry Report, based on which, all the four workmen were dismissed from the service. Aggrieved thereby, they filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and by the impugned awards, the dismissal was set aside. They were ordered to be reinstated into service. Aggrieved thereby, these four Writ Petitions are filed in respect of the four cases by the management.

4. Heard Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent, Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned Counsel for the second respondent, in all the cases.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. He would rely upon Section 4 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 . When the employees are governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 which is self-contained code which has provisions in respect of all the conditions of service, including special provisions for revision under Section 153 in respect of the punishments imposed and the by-laws also containing appeal provisions, there is no jurisdiction for the appellate authority under the to entertain an appeal under Section 41 of the Act. The learned Additional Advocate General would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.V.Raman Vs. Management of Bank of India and Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 105, more specifically, relying u