The Management of Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Chennai & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 93-94 of 1998
Petitioner: The Management of Bank of Madura Ltd.
Respondent: The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Chennai & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 93-94 of 1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 19, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (36 of 1947)
Section 41 – Termination – Charges held not proved by appellate authority – Said orders affirmed by High Court – Findings of the appellate authority based on facts and evidence. Held that there is no ground to interfere. Appeals dismissed.
(Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The grievance in this appeal is that the termination order passed against respondent no. 2 has been wrongly upset by the appellate authority-respondent no. 1 under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 and that order has not been interfered with by
the High Court either by the learned
Single Judge in its writ jurisdiction or by the Division Bench in its appellate jurisdiction.
2. We have been taken through the charges framed against respondent no. 2, the inquiry proceedings, the order made by the appellate authority which is a very detailed and exhaustive one and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench of the High Court. The findings recorded by the appellate authority go against the appellant and the charges framed against the respondent no. 2 were found not proved, which findings stand affirmed. The decision of the appellate authority is based on facts arising in the case and cannot be faulted with.
3. In these circumstances, there is hardly any justification to interfere with any of the orders questioned hereunder. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
4. It is made clear that while reinstating the respondent no. 2 and paying the back wages to him, the amounts that have been paid to the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court or of the High Court, shall be deducted.
1. The grievance in this appeal is that the termination order passed against respondent no. 2 has been wrongly upset by the appellate authority-respondent no. 1 under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 and that order has not been interfered with by
the High Court either by the learned
Single Judge in its writ jurisdiction or by the Division Bench in its appellate jurisdiction.
2. We have been taken through the charges framed against respondent no. 2, the inquiry proceedings, the order made by the appellate authority which is a very detailed and exhaustive one and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench of the High Court. The findings recorded by the appellate authority go against the appellant and the charges framed against the respondent no. 2 were found not proved, which findings stand affirmed. The decision of the appellate authority is based on facts arising in the case and cannot be faulted with.
3. In these circumstances, there is hardly any justification to interfere with any of the orders questioned hereunder. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
4. It is made clear that while reinstating the respondent no. 2 and paying the back wages to him, the amounts that have been paid to the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court or of the High Court, shall be deducted.
