9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was challenged by the appellant in an appeal filed before the Local Board of the Bank on 21st of February, 1983 but by order dated 18th of May, 1983, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act') on 21st of July, 1983. The appeal was filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras. This appeal was dismissed on 1st of September, 1987 on the ground that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 were not applicable to the nationalised Banks as held by the Madras High Court in Management of Bank of India vs. C.V. Raman, 1984 (2) Lab.L.J. 34. This judgment was upheld by this Court on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 1988 was within time. This suit was filed for the declaration that the order dated 11th of January, 1983, by which he was removed from service, was bad in law. The normal period of limitation within which the suit could have been filed is three years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is another Article, namely, Article 113 which is a residuary Article which provides a period of limitation of three years for filing a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere. In order to bring a suit within the period of limitation, the appellant claimed benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he had represented to the Local Board and, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or dispensing with his services or on the ground that he had not been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer. (3) The decision of the appellate authority shall be final and binding on both the employer and the person employed. A perusal of the above provision will show that when a person is dismissed from service, he has a right of appeal to such Authority and within such time as is prescribed under the Act. Rule 9 and 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Rules, 1948 are quoted below to indicate the manner in which the appeal has to be heard and the powers of the Appellate Authority which are exercisable by him in disposing of the appeal :- 9. Appeals under section 41(1)--(1) The Deputy Commissioner of Labour in their respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record briefly the evidence adduced before him and then pass orders giving his reasons therefor. The result of the appeal shall be communicated to the parties as soon as possible. Copies of the orders shall also be furnished to the parties, if required by them. 9-A. Re-hearing of appeals.--(1) In any appeal preferred under the Act, if the employer or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the appellate authority may proceed to hear and determine the appeal ex-parte. (2) In any appeal preferred under the Act, if the appellant fails to appear on the specified date, the appellate authority may dismiss the appeal. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), an order passed under either of those sub-rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revisiion, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. It will be noticed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not speak of a civil court but speaks only of a court . It is not necessary that the court spoken of in Section 14 should be a civil court . Any Authority or Tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a court within the meaning of this Article. In Thakur Jugal Kis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Limitation Act, does not necessarily mean the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that any Tribunal or Authority, deciding the rights of parties, will be treated to be a court . Consequently, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was allowed in that case. This decision was followed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shri Bansi Ram and others. vs. Shri Khazana, AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 20. Applying the above principles in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), which was an Authority constituted under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 to hear and decide appeals, was a court within the meaning of Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
