Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1963 (12) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1963 (12) TMI 37 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the writ of certiorari issued by the Madras High Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
3. Status of the appellant as an employee or employer.
4. Applicability of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.
5. Scope of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the writ of certiorari issued by the Madras High Court:
The primary issue in these appeals was the validity of the writ of certiorari issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court had allowed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent, M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras, and issued a writ of certiorari correcting the finding of the Commissioner of Labour. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court was justified in issuing the writ and whether the Commissioner's order suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation:
The appellant had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, challenging the termination of his services. The respondent contended that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal as the appellant was employed in a position of management. The Commissioner of Labour, under Section 51 of the Act, decided that the appellant was not in a position of management, and this decision was binding and final.

3. Status of the appellant as an employee or employer:
A significant point of dispute was whether the appellant was an employee or an employer under the Act. The respondent argued that the appellant was in a position of management and thus an employer. The Commissioner of Labour, however, found that the appellant did not have the general management or control of the establishment and thus was not an employer under Section 2(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, noting that the appellant did not have the authority to make managerial decisions or control the establishment.

4. Applicability of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947:
The applicability of the Act depended on whether the appellant was an employee or an employer and whether he was employed in a position of management. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act exempts persons employed in a position of management from its provisions. The Supreme Court examined the criteria for determining whether a person is employed in a position of management, such as the power to operate on the bank account, make payments, enter into agreements, supervise work, grant leave, and hold disciplinary proceedings. The Commissioner of Labour applied these tests and concluded that the appellant was not employed in a position of management.

5. Scope of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court discussed the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that a writ of certiorari can be issued where the order of the inferior tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can correct such errors, even if the statute provides that the decision of the Commissioner shall be final. The Supreme Court found that the Commissioner of Labour had applied the correct tests and that his order did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court in the two writ petitions filed by the respondent, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that the Commissioner of Labour's order did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record and that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court emphasized that the usual course in writ proceedings is to correct the error and send the case back to the special tribunal for its decision in accordance with the law, rather than the High Court making its own findings on the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates