THOMAS ANTONEY Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned, Ext. E, reads as follows:

(2.) S.8 of the Travancore-Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, provides:

(3.) Even on the assumption that sub-s. (4) of S.49 is not sufficient to attract the provisions of S.8 of the Travancore-Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, for the interpretation of R.9(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Rules, 1950, there can be no doubt that as stated in Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 2, page 1182: