https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302571 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. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2022 14:14:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302571 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302571