THIRUMULLAPULLI DEVASWOM Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a Hindu Religious Institution by name "thirumullapulli Devaswom" represented, in these proceedings, by its Manager. The first respondent is the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Shop Appellate Authority, Kozhikode and the second respondent is a person, who was an employee under the petitioner-Devaswom.

(2.) THE petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent and dismissed him from service on 2-5-1973. The second respondent filed an appeal challenging that order before the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951, (briefly the Act ). The appeal was dismissed. The second respondent challenged that order by O. P. No. 316 of 1975. This Court set aside the orders of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Appellate Authority, in its turn, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the petitioner for fresh consideration. Petitioner framed afresh Ext. P3 charge against R2. According to the petitioner, there was an enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner passed Ext. P7 order dismissing the second respondent from service. The second respondent did not choose to challenge Ext. P7 order under Section 49 (2) of the Act, as he did on the former occasion. On the second occasion he pursued a different remedy, viz. , an appeal under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (briefly referred to as the Shops Act ). Exhibit P9 is the copy of the appeal memorandum filed by the second respondent before the first respondent--Tribunal, and Ext. P10 is the objection filed by the petitioner-Devaswom. The first respondent passed Ext. P11 order directing the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent, or, in the alternative, to pay an amount of Rs. 5,980, in addition to back wages. It is the correctness of Ext. P11 that is challenged in this original petition.

(3.) EXHIBIT P11 is challenged by the petitioner essentially on the ground that Ext. P9 appeal was incompetent, and that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the second respondent. The lack of jurisdiction relied on by the petitioner is unfounded upon two propositions, viz. , (a) that the petitioner--Devaswom is not an establishment for the purpose of Shops Act, and (b) that even if the Devaswom is an establishment it is entitled to claim exemption provided under Section 3 (1) (f) of the Shops Act.