Certiorari under Article 226 survives a finality clause, but only for patent error of law, not reappraisal of facts.

A statutory finality clause does not bar certiorari under Article 226 where the impugned order discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the record, but judicial review remains limited to patent legal error and does not permit substitution of the High Court's own factual findings. On the management-exemption question, the statutory tests required proof that the employee was in a managerial position, and the authority's finding that the appellant lacked powers of appointment, discipline, leave, independent expenditure, contracts, banking operations, policy making, or binding authority was upheld; the order was therefore not vitiated by apparent legal error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could issue certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the finality clause in Section 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, where the Commissioner's order was alleged to suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record; (ii) Whether the appellant was a person employed in a position of management so as to fall within the exemption in Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could issue certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the finality clause in Section 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, where the Commissioner's order was alleged to suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: A statutory declaration that the Commissioner's decision is final does not oust the constitutional power of judicial review. The scope of certiorari includes correction of an error of law apparent on the face of the record, though not every error of law or fact. The finality attached to the Commissioner's decision under Section 51 did not prevent interference where such a patent legal error was shown, but the error had to be clearly demonstrable from the record.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to interfere under Article 226 only if an error of law apparent on the face of the record was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was a person employed in a position of management so as to fall within the exemption in Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between an "employer", a "person employed", and a person employed in a managerial position. An employer required general management or control of the establishment, while the exemption under Section 4(1)(a) depended on proof that the employee was in a position of management. The Commissioner had applied the proper legal tests, examined the evidence, and found that the appellant had no power of appointment, discipline, leave, independent expenditure, contracts, bank operations, policy making, or binding authority on behalf of the company. The isolated observations relied on by the High Court did not justify holding that the entire order was vitiated by a patent legal error.

Conclusion: The appellant was not shown to be employed in a position of management, and the Commissioner's order was not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been allowed, and the appellant succeeded in restoring the administrative decision in his favour.

Ratio Decidendi: A finality clause does not bar certiorari under Article 226 where a tribunal's order discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the record, but a High Court must not substitute its own factual findings for those of the statutory authority when the authority has applied the correct legal tests.

---