LAKSHMANA NAIK Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN S COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner invokes the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court and prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of respondent 1 in D. Dis. S. E. & A.C. No. 37 of 1962 on his file as that order suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and, further, in dealing with that case, respondent 1 did not exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with provisions contained in S. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The material facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee under respondent 2. There is dispute between the parties as to the length of his service under respondent 2. On October 20, 1962, it is alleged that one of the partners of respondent 2 firm directed the petitioner to attend to certain work. According to respondent 2, the petitioner refused to do that work, and, in the course of exchange of words, he filthily abused Sri Balakrishna Shenoy, one of the partners of the firm, and walked away from the shop in a huff. But, according to the petitioner, the partners of respondent 2 firm, on the ground that there had been a fall in their business, tried to persuade him to leave their service. But, when he refused to do so, they began to give him pinpricks and on October 20, 1962, for no fault of his, Sri Shenoy picked up a quarrel with him and abused him filthily, necked him out of the shop and thereafter did not permit him to attend to his work. October 21, 1962, was a Sunday. Admittedly, the petitioner went to respondent 2's shop on October 22, 1962. As to what happened on that day, the parties are not agreed. According to the petitioner, the partners of resplendent 2 firm did not admit him into the shop. They informed him that he had been dismissed from service. Respondent 2 denies those facts. On October 23, 1962 the petitioner caused a lawyer's notice to be sent to respondent 2 setting out his version and demanding compensation in accordances with law On October 26, 1962, respondent 2 sent by registered post to the petitioner a notice, dated October 20, 1962, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his alleged misbehaviour on October 20, 1962. Respondent 2's case is that that notice was offered to the petitioner on October 22, 1962, but he refused to accept the same and hence sent to him by registered post on October 26, 1962 These allegations are denied by the petitioner. According to him, it was an antedated notice and the same was issued in order to meet the case of the petitioner set out by him in his notice dated October 23, 1962. An enquiry was held against the petitioner on November 26, 1962. According to respondent 2, that enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But the petitioner complains that he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses examined at the enquiry and the statement made by him before the enquiry officer was not recorded by him.

(3.) Two questions arose for decision by respondent 1. They are :