SRIRANGAM JANOPAKARA BANK LIMITED Vs. RANGARAJAN S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in Writ Petition No. 380 of 1960. The petitioner, S. Rangarajan, was employed under respondent 1, the Srirangam Janopakara Bank, Ltd., Srirangam, as its secretary, with effect from 17 October, 1953. On 16 May, 1954, the board of directors framed certain charges against him and kept him under suspension pending enquiry. He was asked to show cause against disciplinary action, and he submitted his explanation on 19 May and again on 24 May, 1954. On 10 June, 1954, at 12 noon, he was informed that the board of directors would hold an enquiry into his case at 6 p.m. Subsequently, the board of directors, by a resolution, found the petitioner guilty, and removed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order, to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, under S.41(2) of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the initial stage there was a controversy as to whether the petitioner was actually present at the enquiry. The Additional Commissioner expressed the opinion that, though the petitioner was present at the enquiry, he was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, and that, further, the charges were not borne out by the evidence. He allowed the appeal.

(2.) THE bank filed Writ Petition No. 200 of 1956, which came up before Rajagopalan, J. He, Rajagopalan, J., quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner and in effect the Additional Commissioner had to re-hear the appeal and dispose it of according to law. THE Additional Commissioner thereafter re-heard the appeal. In the course of that re-hearing, he took additional evidence. THEreafter, he dismissed the appeal upholding the order removing the petitioner from service. THE petitioner then filed the present Writ petition for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner which came up before Veeraswami, J.He put forward three points in support : (1) the proceedings of the board of directors culminating in the removal of the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice, (2) no evidence was recorded at the enquiry before the board of directors as required by S.41(1) of the Act, and that the findings of the board of directors were therefore not based on evidence, and (3) in any case, the Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in taking additional evidence and disposing of the appeal on that basis.

(3.) IN other words, the relief actually granted by the learned Judge went beyond the scope of the relief asked for in the petition. Next the learned Judge quashed the Additional Commissioner's order on the ground that the Additional Commissioner had no power to record additional evidence himself. Rule 9(2) framed under the Act provides that the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in hearing appeals, when preferred to him under S.41(2) of the Act, shall be summary, and that he shall record briefly the evidence adduced before him and then pass orders giving his reasons therefor. IN the view of the learned Judge, rule 9(2) went beyond the scope of S.49 of the Act (the section which confers rule-making power on the Government) read with S. 41(1). Therefore, the order of the Additional Commissioner was vitiated by reason of his taking additional evidence. While disposing of the appeal, the learned Judge purported to follow a prior judgment of this Court by Rajagopalan Ayyangar, J., in Sri Venkateswara Bank Ltd., Salem v. Krishnan and disagreed with the view expressed by Rajagopalan, J., in S. U. S. Davey Sons v. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and another <DJG> The present appeal under the Letters Patent is filed by the bank against the decision of Veeraswami, J.</DJG>