CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. R KANAGASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') against order dated 13th Dec. , 1997 passed by learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1945/97. By the said order, learned single Judge having noticed that the enquiry proceeding suffered from so many infirmities, upheld the order dated 1st Sept. , 1996, passed by the appellate authority. So far as the writ petition is concerned, it has been preferred by the petitioner (1st respondent in the writ appeal) for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to any recovery from the petitioner pursuant to order Ref. No. ROC/17815/90/e. 7 dated 28th Dec. , 1993 and Ref. No. 17895/93/e. 7 dated 7th April, 1994.

(2.) AS the relief in the writ petition is dependent upon the order to be passed in the writ appeal, both the writ appeal and the writ petition were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In the present appeal, the main plea taken by the counsel for the appellant is that the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, the appellant having exempted from the Act.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case is that the 1st respondent, who was appointed in the service of the Corporation on 3rd Oct. , 1974, as Assistant Quality Inspector, was proceed departmentally in respect of ten charges vide charge memo dated 2nd April, 1991, relating to alleged illegalities committed in the year 1987. An enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was made pursuant to which the enquiry report was submitted on 10th June, 1991. He having been held guilty in respect of certain charges, was dismissed from service vide order dated 22nd Dec. , 1992, passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation. Against the said order, the 1st respondent preferred appeal under sub-section (2) to Section 41 of the Act, which was allowed by impugned order dated 1st Sept. , 1996, passed by the 2nd respondent and affirmed by learned single Judge.