P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. This appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in W.P. No. 165 of 1956 must be allowed, though on a ground which was not placed before the learned Judge as learned Counsel apparently overlooked a very material fact, to which we shall advert later on in this judgment, but which concludes the matter.
2. The appellant was a clerk in the employment of the first respondent, the Tiruchirappalli City Co-operative Bank, Ltd., in Puthur, Tiruchirappalli, from about 1942, He was discharged from service on 14 May 1955. He thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (Act 36 of 1947) to the prescribed authority who was the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. At the hearing before the said tribunal, the bank raised a preliminary objection that the provisions of the Act did not apply to the bank, because the bank had been exempted from all the provisions of the At by a notification issued by the Government, That objection was overruled, and, eventually, by his order dated 11 January 1956, the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation passed an order, setting aside the order of the management of the bank, terminating the appellant's services. The result of the order was that the appellant must be deemed to have continued in the services of the bank. It is to quash this order of the Additional Commissioner that the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the bank.
3. Before Rajagopalan, J., who heard the writ petition, the preliminary objection raised before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was again pressed. The contention of the bank was based upon a notification issued by the Government on 29 August 1953 in exercise of the, powers conferred by Section 6 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, which runs thus:
The State Government may, by notification, exempt, either permanently or for a specified period, any establishment or class of establishments or person or class of persons, from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the State Government may deem fit.
By this notification the Government exempted for a period of one year from the date of its publication all societies registered under Section 4 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act from the provisions of the Act, subject to the following conditions, namely, that the societies in which non-members are employed amend their respective by-laws on the line of the special by-laws relating to service conditions of the persons employed in societies appended to this notification and also include the provisions of Chaps. II, III, V and VII of the Madras Shops and Establishments. Act, 1947 (Act XXXVI of 1947), in their standing orders and exhibit them in their premises. The bylaws were amended by the petitioner-bank on 29 July 1955, and the bylaws were duly registered by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 15 November 1955. It was not disputed before Rajagopalan, J., nor before us, that the conditions laid down in the notification were satisfied. The exemption, therefore, became operative from 16 November 1955. On these facts, the learned Judge held that though the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act, on the date when the appellant filed his appeal before he could pass any final order in the appeal, the provisions of the Act had ceased to apply to the bank and the employee who was the appellant before him, and consequently, the Additional Commissioner lost his jurisdiction and could no longer exercise the powers conferred on him, and all proceedings taken by him subsequent to 15 November 1955 when the statutory exemption under Section 6 of the Act came into play, were without jurisdiction. It followed that, on 11 January 1956, the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order that he did and it was accordingly quashed.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the correctness of the view taken by the learned Judge that the appeal filed by him, which was competent on the date it was filed could not be heard and disposed of by the Additional Commissioner, because the bank had been exempted under Section 6 of the Act from 15 November 1955. He contended that any order of exemption, passed after the appeal had been filed would not take away the right of the appellant to have his appeal and disposed of by the tribunal which was competent to entertain his appeal. He relied on the general principles laid down in the well-known case Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving 1905 A.C. 369 and the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act, it is not necessary to deal with these contentions, because of the discovery that we made in the course1 of the arguments which is this. The entire argument on behalf of the bank was founded on the exemption granted by the Government, The exemption notification expressly declared that the exemption would operate, subject to certain conditions, namely that the bylaws should be amended and that the provisions of Chaps. II, III, V and VII of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, should be included in the standing orders of the bank and exhibited in their premises. Section 41 occurs in Chap. VII of the Act. The result would be that either the conditions have been fulfilled, in which case Section 41 of the Act would automatically apply, because that provision should be deemed to have been included in the standing orders, or the condition was not satisfied, in which case the notification would not have the effect of exempting the respondent-bank from the provisions of the Act. To ascertain the correct facts we asked learned Counsel for the bank to place before us the amended bylaws of the bank. We find that one of the amendments runs thus :
Vide also the provisions of Chaps. II, III, V and VII of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Act XXXVI of 1947), which should be read as part and parcel of these bylaws.
Though, by virtue of the exemption, the provisions of the Act as such may have no application, nevertheless, because the provisions of Chap. VII inter alia have been made applicable to the employees of the bank, the result would be that the right of appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act would be preserved to a discharged employee of the bank. Learned Counsel for the bank, very rightly, did not contest this position. It follows from this that the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation never lost jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant before us.
5. In this view, it is not necessary to deal with the other ground, on which the learned Judge set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. We must, however, not be understood as agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Judge as regards the effect of the notification on pending proceedings.
6. The appeal is allowed, and the writ petition filled by the respondent-bank is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.