V. RAMABHADRAN Vs. P.K. SOMASEKHARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Trivandrum branch of the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Ltd., is the Petitioner. Respondent 1 is an employee under the Petitioner company, having been appointed in the branch office at Trivandrum. Respondent 2 is the Labour Commissioner under the Travancore -Cochin State. Respondent 3 is the State itself. By a 1's services as a typist in the branch office were dispensed with. Against that order Respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 41, Travancore -Cochin Shops and Establishments Act (Act 9 of 1125) before Respondent 2 who has been constituted as the appellate authority under that section. Respondent 1 had prayed for a cancellation of the order dispensing, with his services and also for a mandate to the Petitioner company to reinstate him in service. On getting notice of the appeal, the Petitioner company entered appearance and objected to the sustainability of the appeal on several grounds.

(2.) ON hearing both sides, we are satisfied that this petition has to be allowed on the short ground that the order of dispensation of the services of Respondent 1 in the branch office of the Petitioner company at Trivandrum with effect from 30 -4 -1951, having been cancelled and withdrawn by the company itself long prior to the passing of the order dated 30 -11 -1951 by Respondent 2, he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the other objections directed against the validity and constitutionality of the Travancore -Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, Act 9 of 1125, do not call for any decision in the present petition. Accordingly we are not in these proceedings going into the merits of these objections. On the other hand we proceed to examine the question whether Respondent 2 had anything to adjudicate upon in appeal S.E. No. 11 of 1951 as the appellate authority constituted under Section 41, shops and Establishments Act. For this purpose we are assuming that the said Act is valid and that Respondent 2 has been properly constituted as the appellate authority under Section 41 of that Act. Section 49 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Accordingly the necessary rules were framed and published by the State Government in the Gazette dated 29 -5 -1950. It was by virtue of the authority conferred by Rule 9 of the said rules that Respondent 2 was constituted as the appellate authority as contemplated by Section 41, Shops and Establishments Act. Clause (1) of Section 41 states that

(3.) AS already stated, Respondent 1's appeal is directed against this order and the appeal was filed by him on 17 -5 -1951. When the matter reached the notice of the Head Office, the authorities there appear to have been convinced that the order dated 30 -4 -1951 was not properly passed by the Branch Office. Accordingly instructions were issued to the Branch Office to withdraw and cancel that order and to place Respondent 1 under suspension pending final orders after a proper inquiry into the allegations against him. As a consequence of such instructions, Anr. communication dated 28 -5 -1951 was issued to Respondent 1 from the branch office intimating him as follows: