AUGUSTINE MATHAI Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, no employer shall dispense with the services of an employee employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for reasonable cause and without giving such employee atleast one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. This is subject to the proviso that where services are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence at an enquiry held for that purpose no such notice is necessary. An appeal lies before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Authority) under Subsection (2) in case of contravention. Petitioner claims that he was an employee under the 2nd respondent-Church for the past 27 years and his services were dispensed with in violation of Section 18. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first respondent accepting the preliminary objection of the 2nd respondent that the Church does not come within the definition of 'establishment' under the Act Prayer is to quash Ext. P1 order and for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal afresh on the merits.

(2.) PETITIONER claims that he was an Accountant under the 2nd respondent and he was denied employment from July 27, 1986 without any charge, notice or enquiry. The fact that he was an Accountant is denied. It is said that he was 6nly elected by the meeting of the parishioners to write the accounts of the Church at the direction of the Vicar for five hours a week (two days in a week on the whole ). No better claim is established. It is said that ne refused to write the accounts and present the same before the Yogam and hence he was removed as resolved by the Yogam. Even according to the admission of the petitioner his monthly remuneration was only Rs. 100/- besides some special allowances on festival days. Petitioner complained to the District Labour Officer who held conferences which did not succeed. That is how he approached the first respondent by way of appeal which was dismissed under Et. P1.

(3.) PETITIONER admitted that second respondent-Church is not a commercial establishment as defined in the Act. But his case is that the Church is having commercial and profit making activities and he was employed in that activity and therefore he will come within the purview of the Act. Management of certain plantations and institutions belonging to the Church are said to be the commercial activities. The Church admits having plantations and institutions. But there is nothing to show that they are shops or commercial establishments or that petitioner was in any way employed in connection with them. From the admitted facts what emerges is that he was engaged only in the Church, and that too for writing account relating to the income derived by the Church and its expenses in connection with the Church activities.