HARIDASAN PILLAI Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A money-bee has come to Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 18 (3) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, for short the Shops Act, dismissing his appeal against the termination of his services as money-bee of the 3rd respondent-Bank, as not maintainable. The Ist respondent-Appellate Authority held that no appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Shops Act will lie as the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner since he falls under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Shops Act will not apply to persons doing service in an establishment simply because their work mainly involves travelling and they are persons employed as canvassers and caretakers and their names do not appear in the muster rolls and hence no appeal by them is maintainable under Section 18 if their services are dispensed with.

(2.) THE petitioner is a money-bee appointed for collection of small savings deposits at the Aroor branch of the 3rd respondent-Bank as per Ext. P-I order dated 73-3-1972. Exhibit P-2 is a letter issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent Manager of the Aroor branch informing him that the Bank has no other alternative but to terminate the petitioner's service as money-bee of the branch. Exhibit P-3 is a show-cause notice sent to the petitioner. The petitioner's services were dispensed with, with effect from 20-11-1976. This was challenged by the petitioner before the 1st respondent in Exhibit P-4 appeal. Exhibit P-5 is the written objections filed by the Bank before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority. By Exhibit P-6 the 1st respondent dismissed Exhibit P-4 appeal saying: Since the appellant falls under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the appellant. So, the appeal under Section 18 (2) will not lie. Hence I hold that the appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) IT was under the above circumstances that the petitioner money-bee approached this Court with this original petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Bank justifying Exhibit P-6 order. In para. 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated: The petitioner was not an employee of the bank as defined in Section 2 (6) of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Even if that is not so, the Act did not apply to him in view of Section 3 (1) (b) thereof.