CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. THRESSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition is filed by Corporate Manager, CMS Schools, Kottayam, challenging Ext. P2 order passed by the second respondent, under S.18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'). An appeal was filed by the first respondent and by Ext P2 order, second respondent directed reinstatement of the first respondent. Short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:

(2.) First respondent was employed as cook in the hostel attached to Baker Memorial High School, Kottayam, which is one of the schools under the Corporate Management of the Petitioner. According to the first respondent, she was cook in the hostel for nearly 25 years and was under treatment on medical advice from 20.6.1987 to 16.8.1987. After her illness, she came back on 17.8.1987, but she was denied employment According to the first respondent, she filed petition before the Corporate Manager on 9.10.1987. But she did not receive any reply. Hence, she filed appeal under S.18 of the Act before the second respondent On getting notice, petitioner appeared before the second respondent and contended that the appeal was barred by limitation and that in any event, second respondent has no jurisdiction to try the issue as hostels are exempted from the purview of the Act Regarding the question of condemnation of delay, appellate authority condoned the delay. Appellate authority took note of the fact that the first respondent received salary upto April, 1987 and since the appeal was filed on 29.10.1987, it is within six months, which is the outer limit prescribed under the Act Hence, I don't find any ground to interfere with the order of the appellate authority regarding condonation of delay.

(3.) Second contention urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that hostels are exempted from the purview of the Act. According to counsel, notification was issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government exempting hostels from the purview of The (Travancore-Cochin) Shops and Establishments Act, 1125 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1125 Act'). That notification has not been cancelled so far and hence, according to counsel, that notification is even now continuing. Learned counsel referred me to the decision reported in Sherthallai Sreenarayana Medical Mission General Hospital v. Damodaran Krishnan Unni - 1975 KLT 572 , where a similar question arose with regard to nursing homes. Viswanatha Iyer, J. relying on S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act held mat the notification issued under the 1125 Act continues to be in force by virtue of the above provision till it is cancelled. Learned counsel also relied on S.36 of the Act by which the (Travancore-Cochin) Shops and Establishments Act was repealed and is provided that anything done under the previous Act shall be deemed to have been done under the present Act