ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce is whether the third respondent who was working as its Branch Manager and whose services were terminated by the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and prefer an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras under S. 41 of the Act.

(2.) The third respondent, as already stated, was appointed as an officer by the petitioner and posted as the Manager of the Madras Branch. While so on 28-7-76 the petitioner passed an order terminating the services of the third respondent. The order of termination of the third respondent's services was passed in view of the fact that pursuant to certain complaints against him, the third respondent was taken into police custody and later released on bail and that some criminal complaint was pending against him. Against this order of dismissal the third respondent preferred an appeal T.S.E. Appeal No. 72 of 1980 before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under S. 41 of the Act. The petitioner took an objection before the Commissioner of Labour that the third respondent was an employer as defined under the Act and he could not, therefore, seek the protection of S. 41 of the Act and prefer an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The petitioner also preferred an application before the Commissioner of Labour, Madras under S. 51 of the Act for a declaration that the third respondent was not a person employed as defined under the Act to claim protection under S. 41 of the Act and that consequently T.S.E. Appeal No. 72 of 1980 pending before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should be dismissed. The Commissioner of Labour, Madras, the first respondent herein, passed an order on 26-7-1980 holding that the third respondent was a person employed and was entitled to invoke the provisions of S. 41 of the Act. Accordingly he directed that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Madras, before whom the appeal preferred by the third respondent was pending, should proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in C.C. No. 1 of 1980 on 26-7-1980.

(3.) While Mr. Ramalingam, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the third respondent was not a "person employed" within the meaning of the Act, Mr. Anandan Nair would contend that the third respondent was a "person employed" within the meaning of S. 2(12) of the Act.