9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of an employee for misconduct. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Shops Act. 3. Consideration of evidence in a domestic enquiry. 4. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act in the case. Analysis: 1. Dismissal of an employee for misconduct: The respondent, an employee of the appellant company, was dismissed for being absent without leave and for engaging in unauthorized repair work on a typewriter on the company's premises. The domestic enquiry found both charges against the respondent to be established, leading to his dismissal. However, the Commissioner, in an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, set aside the order of dismissal on the grounds that the second charge was not proved and that the dismissal was disproportionate to the offense. The Commissioner's decision was based on a re-appreciation of evidence and the wider scope of appellate jurisdiction under the Shops Act compared to the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Shops Act: The appellant argued that the respondent, claiming to be a protected workman, should have resorted to the Industrial Disputes Act for relief instead of the Shops Act. The appellant contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had submitted to the Commissioner's jurisdiction by not objecting earlier. The Court also noted that an order under the Shops Act is binding on both parties, unlike the Industrial Disputes Act, where an industrial dispute can still be raised after approval. 3. Consideration of evidence in a domestic enquiry: The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order as perverse, alleging that the evidence of the company's doctor was not adequately considered. The Court reviewed the doctor's evidence and found that it contradicted the company's version of events, supporting the Commissioner's decision. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner had the authority to re-examine evidence and reach an independent conclusion, unlike the limited scope of the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act in the case: The respondent had initially raised the issue of being a protected workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, but the Tribunal rejected this claim. The Supreme Court clarified that the respondent's appeal under the Shops Act was valid, and the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to review the dismissal order based on the evidence presented. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision to set aside the dismissal and upheld the wider scope of the Commissioner's appellate jurisdiction under the Shops Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to set aside the dismissal order based on a re-evaluation of evidence and the broader jurisdiction conferred under the Shops Act in contrast to the Industrial Disputes Act.
|
