REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. versus THIRU R. JAMBULINGAM

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 05-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
1HIRU R. JAMBULINGAM 
September 5, 1974 
£1', JAOANMOHAN Rl!DDY AND P. K. GoswAMJ, JJ,] 
17 
Tamil Nadu Shops and EstabUshment•· Act, s. 41(1)-.SCope of Commlsslo11tr's 
power In appeal. 
Practice and Procedure-Appellant contending that respondent 11 not prottc· 
led workman before the lndU.rtria/ Tribunal-Later raising the plea In the court 
that he was a protected- workman to oust the' Jurisdiction of the Comm/&1/vntr 
11nder the Tamil Nad11 Shops &: Establishments Act-If can be allowed to raise 
the plea. 
. The respondent was a typewriter mechanic under the appellant. He was char· 
ged with (1) having absented himself on a particular day without leave and with· 
out sufficient cause, and (2) that he on that day did some private repair wort of 
a typewriter. A domestic enquiry was held, the charges were found to be estab-
lished and he was dismissed. Sinco an industrial dispute was then pending, the 
appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal order 
under s. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent contended before 
the Tribunal that he was a protected workman and that therefore the appellant 
should have sought prior permission under s. · 33(3). The Tribunal rejected the 
respondent's plea and approved the dismissal order; Meanwhile, the respondent 
had appealed to tho Commi99ioncr under ~. ·41(2) of the Tam.ii Nadu Shops and 
Establishments Act, and tho Commissioner held the first charge eroved, but not 
the second charge and allowed the appeal holdillg that tho puDJShment of dis· 
missal was disproportionate to· the sravity of the offence proved. 
In appeal to this Court, the al!llOllant contended that ( 1 ) the rspondent hav-
ing claimed to be. a protected womnan should have applied under s. 33A of the 
I ndtutrial Dispule!J Act and his appeal to the Commissioner under· the Shopi Act 
was misconceived, (2) tho Commissioner failed to considu some evidenco, and 
( 3) the Commissioner should not have interfered with the order passed in the 
domestic enquiry. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
Hl!tD: (I) (a) Tbo appellant having contended before the Industrial Tribunal 
that ·the ·respondent was not a protected workman cannot be allowed to raiso the 
plea of ouster of jurisdiction. [190-D] · 
. (b) Further, the appellant had not raised any objection to the jurisdiction of 
the Commissioner to hear the appeal but submitted to the juriSdiction of the Com· 
missioner. 
[190] 
(2) There is no basis for the contention that the. Commissioner illnored any 
evidence. [190] 
G 
(3) The jurisdiction of the Commissioner is an appellate jurisdiction and Is 
of wider scope unlike that of the Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes 
Act. The Commissioner, was therefore, competent to rehear the matter, tato ad· 
ditional evidence if ~. 
and come to his own conclusion after a rc-appre· 
ciation of the evidence. [19H·20Bl 
H 
CXVn. APPELLA'I'r! JURJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1764 of 
1972. 
· 
Appeal by Special Leave from .the Judgment and Order dated the 
16th November, 1971 of the Additional Commissioner for Workman's 
Compensation, Madurai in T.N.S.E. Appeal No. & of 1971. 
3-251 Sup. C1/75 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
M. Natesan, M. L. Verma and D. N. Gupta fqr the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the C-Ourt was delivered by 
GosWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's C-Ompensation, 
Madurai (briefly the Cctlllmissioner) in an appeal before him lodged by 
the respondent ·against the order of his· dismissal passed by the appel-
lant company on December 29, 1970. 
The respondent was in employment under the appellant company 
at the Tiruchiiapalli Branch as a typewriter mechanic since 1950. 
The charges against him were that he was' absent on November 2, 
1970, without leave and without sufficient cause and also 
secc111dly 
that he was on the said day privately doing· some repair work of a type· 
writer in the premises belonging to the Eswari Institute of Commerce, 
Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was directed to show cause on Ncivem-
ber 17, 1970 and was placed under suspension. After receipt of his 
reply to the charge-sheet, a domestic enquiry was held in which wit-
nesses were examined. The respondent examined only himself on his 
behalf and the appellant examined three witnesses including

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.