1997 (3) TMI 609 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules dismissal under Shops Act unlawful. Appellate Authority to review evidence.

THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATIONOF SOUTHERN INDIA Versus K.G. SANGAMESWARAN & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant fell under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and the respondent's dismissal without following ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 to the respondent and the appellant.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act before dismissing the respondent.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947The Appellate Authority found that the United Planters Association of Southern India, the appellant, was declared a commercial establishment by the Tamil Nadu Government vide Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 6265 dated 20.12.1948 issued u/s 2(3) of the Act. Consequently, the appellant would be governed by the Act. Since the respondent was employed as an Accountant in that establishment, he fell within the definition of 'person employed' as set out in section 2(12) of the Act.Issue 2: Compliance with Section 41(1) of the ActThe Appellate Authority held that the respondent was dismissed from service without following the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and without holding a domestic enquiry. The appellant argued that the dismissal was not an order of dismissal but a simple termination, thus not requiring a domestic enquiry. However, the Supreme Court found that the order dated 5.7.1994 was punitive in nature as it held the respondent guilty of misconduct, including misappropriation, and was not an innocuous order of simple termination.Additional Considerations:The Supreme Court emphasized the wide jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority u/s 41(2) read with Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Rules, 1943, to record evidence and come to its own conclusions on the charges framed against the delinquent officer. The Court cited several precedents affirming the authority's power to take additional evidence and decide the merits of the charges, even if the domestic enquiry was defective or not held at all.The Court also addressed the principles of natural justice, stating that if an opportunity of hearing was not given at the initial stage, it could be sufficiently met at the appellate stage. The respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the opportunity of hearing at this stage would suffice for a just and proper enquiry.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order dated 12.2.1996 passed by the Appellate Authority were set aside. The case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent u/s 41 of the Act afresh in accordance with law, considering the observations made by the Supreme Court. No costs were awarded.