Skip to content


Neroth (C.C.) (Proprietor, Sessions Company Vs. Govinda Kurup (K.) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1967)IILLJ422Ker
AppellantNeroth (C.C.) (Proprietor, Sessions Company
RespondentGovinda Kurup (K.) and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....(2) of the kerala shops and commercial establishments act (34 of 1960) an appeal shall lie to the appellate authority only against a written order dispensing with the services of the authority and that as there was no such order in the present case, the appeal before the appellate authority was not maintainable. the'objection in this form was not raised before the appellate authority and i must decline to entertain it for the first time in these proceedings. the appeal before the appellate authority seems to have proceeded on the basis that there was no denial of work to the employee, but only a wilful abstention from work by him. it is prejudicial to the employee to entertain this point for the first time in these proceedings under article 223.2. that apart, the language of section 18.....
Judgment:

V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.

1. The only ground urged In support of this writ petition la that under Section 18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (34 of 1960) an appeal shall lie to the appellate authority only against a written order dispensing with the services of the authority and that as there was no such order In the present case, the appeal before the appellate authority was not maintainable. The'objection in this form was not raised before the appellate authority and I must decline to entertain It for the first time In these proceedings. The appeal before the appellate authority seems to have proceeded on the basis that there was no denial of work to the employee, but only a wilful abstention from work by him. It Is prejudicial to the employee to entertain this point for the first time In these proceedings under Article 223.

2. That apart, the language of Section 18 of the Aot does not seem to contemplate a written order dispensing with the services of the employee. It provides for an appeal by any employee whose services are dispensed with. The requirement of an order dispensing with the services can be spelt out, if at all, only from Rule 3 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1961, which provides that the appeal under Section 18 of the Act shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of delivery of the order terminating his service with the employer, and that the said thirty days shall be reckoned from the date on which the order Is delivered to the employee either personally or If that be not practical, by prepaid registered post, eto. It Is too much to read from this rule, which only provided the period of limitation for preferring the appeal, that In every case there should be a written order and that In the absence of any such order, no right of appeal oan be exercised under Section 18 of the Act. I oannot accept the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. The original petition falls and is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //