ICICI BANK LTD Vs. A. VAIYAPHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order dtd. 18/12/2003 made by the 2nd respondent in T.S.E.I/I.A./I/10/2003 in T.S.E.I./28/2002 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947), Chennai 600 006.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell:- The petitioner is a Bank incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the banking and related activities having Branches all over India. The first respondent joined the services of the erstwhile Bank of Madura at Corporate Office on 24/4/1978 and the 1st respondent was in the employment of the commercial establishment of ICICI Bank situated at Cochin. In fact the 1st respondent was working for the petitioner bank in the State of Kerala from the year 1994 till the date of termination of his services. In other words the employee was employed for the purpose of the business of the establishment of the bank situated in the State of Kerala. The first respondent had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the order of termination passed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed IA for leading of evidence to establish the reasonableness of the preliminary objection/counter of the petitioner. The second respondent dismissed the above I.A. on 18/12/2003. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner Bank has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent was employed as a Branch Manager in NR Road Branch Road, Bangalore from 17/1/1994 to 25/5/1996 and thereafter he was transferred to Kollam Branch on 5/6/1996 and again was transferred from Kollam to Ernakulam on 11/6/1997. The first respondent was suspended on 5/12/1997 at Ernakulam and that charge sheet was issued from Chennai on 23/9/1998 and reply was received from the first respondent on 1/10/1998. The enquiry was held on 19/2/2000 at Bangalore and all subsequent proceedings were held at Bangalore and that the disciplinary authority issued the finding vide his letter dtd. 13/3/2002 from Mumbai and request for reply by the first respondent was sent to the Mumbai Office. Thereafter an order of dismissal was passed by Senior Executive Vice President dtd. 18/4/2002 from Mumbai and that an appeal dtd. 15/5/2002 was addressed to the Managing Director, Mumbai. He further submitted that the first respondent has preferred an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the second respondent which is not maintainable and prohibited under law.