RONEO LTD Vs. RAVI SAMPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner-employer under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderahad to entertain the appeal CMA No. 30/68 presented by it against the order of the authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act dt. 7-6-1968, The respondent was appointed by the petitioner as office Assistant on 1-2-60. He was confirmed on 27-7-1960. He was first promoted as Sales Supervisor. Thereafter be was promoted as acting Manager of the Hyderabad Branch on 1-7-1965 The Regional Manager of the Madras who inspected the Hyderabad Branch on 29-3-1966 noticed certain irregularities. The respondent employee handed over charge on 1-4-1956 and submitted his resignation on 6-4-1966. Later on he stated that he was forced to submit his resignation which according to him amounts to termination of his services. Thereafter, he claimed certain amounts relating to gratuity, notice pay and subsequent wages, The payment of Wages Authority under Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act of 1951, granted Rs. 12,233-39 on 7-6-1968, The Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 repealing Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, 1951 came into force on 15-6-1967, By proviso (a) to Section 72 of the repealing Act every appointment order, rule, notification or notice made issued or given under the repealed Acts, is deemed to have been made, issued or given under the new Act in so tar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Section 72 or any otber provisions of this Act do not disclose that the right of appeal accrued to the employer under the old Art to the Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad has been taken away either expresslv or by necessary incendment.

(2.) If nothing has been specified in the repealing Act taking away such right vested in the party, the provisions of Section 8 (a) & (f) of the Andbra Pradesh General Clauses Act will come into play preserving the right of the party, Tn the circumstances the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad must be held to be maintainable in law and the view of the learned Judge that no appeal is maintainable to the Chief Judge. City Civil Court is not correct.

(3.) That apart, section 46 of the new Act also provides for a right of appeal against a direction made under sub-section (2) of subsection (3) of Section 44 of thr Act to the District Court within 30 days from the date of the service of the direction op the applicant or employer. Even on this ground also, a right of appeal is provided to the employer to the District Court and in the instant case, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Judged from any angle, T have no hesitation to bold that the view of the court below that no appeal lies in the instant case to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court but to the Labour Commissioner, is erroneous and illegal. No appeal lies to the Labour Commissioner by the employer against the termination of the services of an employed That would apply only to a case where the employee has to prefer an appeal under the new Act questioning the termination of bis services by the employer. The reasoning of the lower court is erroneous and illegal.