Skip to content


Sundaram Chettiar (S.) Vs. Gopalan (K.) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1967)ILLJ522Ker
AppellantSundaram Chettiar (S.)
RespondentGopalan (K.) and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 573 is clearly distinguishable, as that was a case where, on the date of the order on appeal, there was a clear cancellation of the order of termination......has been alleged and found, terminated the services of respondent 1 on 10 march 1963. respondent 1 filed an appeal under section 18(2) of the act before respondent 2 on 19 march 1963. meanwhile, on 15 march 1963 the petitioner had issued a notice to respondent 1 to show cause against disciplinary proceedings, treating respondent 1 still, as an employee in service. on these facts it is argued that on the date when the appeal was filed, there was no termination of service of respondent 1 and that respondent 2 had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question as to whether there was a termination of service or not. i am clear that respondent 2, can, in a case of dispute proceed to find whether there was a termination of service or not. in the instant case it has found that the notice.....
Judgment:

V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.

1. The only question argued is whether the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, had Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed before it and to decide whether there was, in fact, a termination of service of the employee.

2. The petitioner la the employer, who, it has been alleged and found, terminated the services of respondent 1 on 10 March 1963. Respondent 1 filed an appeal under Section 18(2) of the Act before respondent 2 on 19 March 1963. Meanwhile, on 15 March 1963 the petitioner had issued a notice to respondent 1 to show cause against disciplinary proceedings, treating respondent 1 still, as an employee in service. On these facts it is argued that on the date when the appeal was filed, there was no termination of service of respondent 1 and that respondent 2 had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question as to whether there was a termination of service or not. I am clear that respondent 2, can, in a case of dispute proceed to find whether there was a termination of service or not. In the instant case it has found that the notice regarding disciplinary proceedings was not bona fide, and in spite of the same, there was a termination of service. If respondent 2 has no power to decide this disputed question Section 18(2) of the Act can be easily rendered nugatory.

3. The decision in 1953-I L.L.J. 573 is clearly distinguishable, as that was a case where, on the date of the order on appeal, there was a clear cancellation of the order of termination. In the present case there was none and the notice of disciplinary proceedings, which is claimed to have that effect, was found to be not bona fide, and in no way to erase or cancel the order of termination.

4. The appeal was rightly entertained by respondent 2 and I see no ground to interfere with its finding.

5. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.


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