SPENCER AND COMPANY Vs. B VAJRAVELU AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has become the settled law as far as this court is concerned that having regard to the unambiguous language of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 it is not permissible for the authority who is competent to decide the appeal under the said section to take evidence. It has been so laid down in Zenith Lamps & Electricals v. Addl Commissioner,1973 2 LLJ 445; Similar is the view expressed in another decision in Zenith Lamps & Electricals v. Addl Commissioner, 1970 2 LLJ 103. This is a case where no enquiry was conducted by the management even though the employee came to be dismissed on a charge of misconduct.

(2.) We may now extract the provisions of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947:

(3.) However, what is contended before us is that the decisions referred supra requires a second lock having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. R. Jam-bulingam, 1975 1 LLJ 450. We are not pur-suaded to accept the submission because that was not a case of not holding an enquiry. The question was whether the Appellants Authority under Section 41 of the Act could take additional evidence and the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar in entertaining additional evidence if that is necessary in the interests of justice. But here is a case where the services of the employee have been dispensed with on a charge of misconduct without holding an enquiry in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act.