INDIAN BANK MADRAS Vs. G SURYANARAYANAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this Writ Appeal is whether the Indian Bank, a Nationalized Bank, is an 'establishment under the Central Government', within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966.

(2.) Sub-section (1) of Section 64 exempts certain establishments from the operation of the Act, and one of the categories so exempted is "establishments under the Central and State Governments". The questions arises in the following circumstances. The services of the 1st respondent were terminated by the appellant Bank where upon he approached the authority under Section 41 of the Act by way of an appeal. By its order, dt. 11 -3-1976 the authority allowed the appeal declaring that the termination is illegal and unjustified arid directed his reinstatement. On second appeal the Labour Court, Guntur, affirmed the order of the Authority. The Bank then approached this Court by way of WP No. 4811/79 raising two contentions, viz., (i) that the 1st respondent was not an employee of the Bank, and that there was no relationship of master and servant between them, and (ii) that the Bank is outside the purview of the Act by virtue of the exemption in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 64. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, rejected the first contention holding that the finding of the authorities under the Act thereon was final, and was not open to review in a writ petition. The second question was indeed not pressed by the counsel for the Bank in view of the decision of a Bench of this Court in WA No. 268/1975, dated 3-2-1976, holding that a nationalized Bank is "not an establishment under the Central Government -and, therefore, not exempt from the provisions of the Act. In this Writ Appeal, however, the learned counsel for the Bank, Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, sought to question the correctness of the said Bench decision, evidently inspired by a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in C.V. Raman and othersvs. Bank of India, Southern Region His contention is that the said Bench decision was rendered before the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shelly vs. Authority of India Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravard and other subsequent decisions rn the said aspect and, therefore, requires reconsideration. His reasoning, runs thus : the Indian Bank having been rationalised in the year 1969 is an instrumentality of the State, within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution ; it is wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government ; though incorporated as a separate juristic entity ; for all practical purposes it is an agency and an arm of the Central Government. It must, therefore, be held to be an "establishment under the Central Government" within the meaning of Section 64 (1) (b) of the Act, and hence exempt from the operation of the Act We are not satisfied that we can accede to this argument.

(3.) The A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, was enacted by the State Legislature to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments and other establishments, and for providing matters connected therewith. It repealed the Madras Shops and Establishments A;t, 1947, (which was in operation in Andhra area of the State) and the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, 1951 (which was in operation in the Telangana area of ihe State). Section 4 (1) (c) of the Madras Act and Section 4 (1) (c) of the Hyderabad Act also exempted establishments under the Central and State Governments from their operation. Same language was repeated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the present Act.