PARAPPA SANGAPPA PALLED Vs. ASTULSAHEB HASANSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five writ petitions are filed by Parappa Sangappa Palled, which is a firm ot commission agents carrying on business at Bagalkot. They are directed against the urders passed by the District Judge, Bijapur, in five revision petitions filed under S.39(4) of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (hereinafter reierred to as the Act) on his file. Respondent-1 in each of these petitions was an employee of the petitioner-firm. The services of these employees were terminated by the petitioner with effect from 29-8-1968. Aggrieved by the order of termination of services the said employees preferred appeals before the Assistant Labour Commissioner The Appellate Authority under S.39(2) of the Act, respondent-3 in these petitions, (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) for necessary relief. The appellate authority passed an order in each of those appeals directing the petitioner to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice and a further sum amounting to six months salary by way of compensation to each of the employees under sub-sec. (3) of S.39 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner applied to the learned District Judge under S.39(4) of the Act. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge dismissed the revision petitions.

(2.) It may be mentioned at this stage that while passing the order on the appeal filed by Virupaxappa Sharanappa Talikote, respondent-1 in WP. 3524 of 1970, the appellate authority had permitted the petitioner to deduct from the total compensation payable to respondent-1 a sum of Rs.950 which was admittedly due by him to the petitioner. But in the revision petition filed against that order, the learned District Judge modified the said order by directing the petitioner not to deduct the sum referred to above, but to pay a sum of Rs.1,070 made up of one month's salary in lieu of notice and six months salary by way of compensation. The resulting position was that the petitioner had to pay by reason of the order of the learned District Judge much more than what he was liable to pay under the orders of the appellate authority.

(3.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned District Judge in the aforesaid revision petitions, the petitioner has filed these petitions. Sri U.L.Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in all these cases, contended that the orders pased by respondents 2 and 3 in each of the above petitions wore liable to be set aside on the following grounds: (i) that no finding had been given by either of the two authorities i.e., respondents 2 and 3, that the service of the employees in question were terminated without reasonable cause which alone in the circumstances of these cases, would confer jurisdiction on them to award compensation under S.39(3) of the Act; (ii) even if it is to be held that the termination of services of the employees was effected without reasonable cause, respondents 2 and 3 failed to determine what compensation should be paid to each of the employees in accordance with sub-sec. (3) of S.39 of the Act; (iii) that no proper enquiry was held by respondent-2, the appellate authority, in order to determine whether the termination of services was for a reasonable cause or not; and (iv) so far as WP.3524 of 1970 was concerned, the learned District Judge was wrong in modifying the order of the appellate authority to the prejudice of the petitioner.