POWER CENTRE PVT LTD Vs. R PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order in E.A.4056 of 2007, a petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, in E.P.No.1951 of 2006 in O.S.No.10596 of 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Ciiv Court, Chennai. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.10596 of 1987 for arrears of salary amounting to Rs.82,700/- with 12% pa future interest and also for future salary at Rs.2,000/- pm along with allowances with interest at 12% pa from 24.4.1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement. The said suit was decreed exparte on 26.06.1992. To execute the decree the plaintiff, employee under the defendant, had filed E.P.No.1951 of 2006 in O.S.No.10596 of 1987. Only in the said EP, the revision petitioner had filed E.A.No.4056 of 2007 under Section 47 CPC. The Executing Court had dismissed the EA.NO.4056 of 2007 on the ground that the contention of the petitioner that the civil court has no jurisdiction cannot be sustainable.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as per Section 41 and Sub-clause 3 to Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the suit itself is not maintainable. As per section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, only a months notice is required to be sent by the employer before any employee is placed under suspension and even the said notice is not necessary if the employee is suspended on the charge of misconduct supported by the evidence. Relying Section 41(2) of the said Act the learned counsel would further contend that the employee has not preferred any appeal against the order of suspension of the employer and hence, the suit is not maintainable. As per section 2 sub-clause 3 of the said Act what is "commercial establishment" has been defined under the said Act as follows:-

(3.) THE other ratios in 2002 (3) LW 644 (Vummidi Bangaru Chetty (P) Ltd.,Vs. M/s.Spencer & Co. Ltd.,) and AIR 1991 SC 1094 (M/s.East India Corporation Ltd., Vs. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.,) are not applicable to the present facts of the case because the suit filed for relief Nos. 1 an 2 to the plaint for arrears of salary from July 1984 till the plaintiff resigned from his post is not barred under Section 9 of CPC.