Appellate remedy under Shops and Establishments law remains distinct from Industrial Disputes proceedings, with broad power to reassess dismissal evidence.

An employer's objection that the employee's Shops and Establishments Act appeal was barred by parallel proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act failed because the objection was not raised before the Commissioner and the employer had submitted to that forum. The two remedies were treated as distinct, so approval proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act did not exclude the appellate remedy. The Commissioner also had wide appellate powers to reappreciate evidence and, if necessary, take additional evidence, so interference with dismissal was permissible where the medical evidence did not support the employer's case and the punishment was not shown to be perverse or unlawful. The dismissal was therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employee's remedy before the Commissioner under the Shops and Establishments Act was barred because the management had sought approval under the Industrial Disputes Act and the employee had claimed protected workman status; (ii) Whether the Commissioner could interfere with the dismissal order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate and the evidence did not support the management's case.

Issue (i): Whether the employee's remedy before the Commissioner under the Shops and Establishments Act was barred because the management had sought approval under the Industrial Disputes Act and the employee had claimed protected workman status.

Analysis: The management's objection on forum and jurisdiction was not permitted to be raised, particularly because the objection had not been taken before the Commissioner and the management had submitted to that forum. The two statutory remedies were also treated as distinct in character: proceedings for approval or challenge under the Industrial Disputes Act did not exclude an appeal under the Shops and Establishments Act, and the appellate order under the Shops and Establishments Act was binding on both employer and employee.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed and the appeal under the Shops and Establishments Act was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner could interfere with the dismissal order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate and the evidence did not support the management's case.

Analysis: The Commissioner exercised appellate jurisdiction of wider scope and was competent to reappreciate the evidence and take additional evidence if necessary in the interests of justice. On the record, the medical evidence did not support the management's version, and the Commissioner's assessment that the proved misconduct warranted no dismissal was not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. The limits applicable to interference by an Industrial Tribunal in approval proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act were held not to govern an appeal under the Shops and Establishments Act.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was entitled to set aside the dismissal, and no ground was made out to disturb that decision.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order could not be sustained in the face of the Commissioner's appellate determination, and the employer's challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority with plenary reappreciative powers under the Shops and Establishments Act may independently examine the evidence and grant relief against dismissal, and an unraised jurisdictional objection cannot be allowed to defeat that appellate remedy where the party has submitted to the forum.

---