MOHANAKRISHNIAH NAIDU Vs. NATIONAL BANK OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
NATIONAL BANK OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court, dated 20 August 1952, and made here in, and the counter-affidavit and reply-affidavit filed herein, and other papers material to this application and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thirumalaiswami Naidu, advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. O. T. G. Nambiar for Messrs. King and Partridge attorneys for the respondent 1, and the respondent 2 not appearing in person or by advocate, the court made the following ORDER
(2.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus on the National Bank of India, Ltd. , directing it to reinstate the petitioner as a clerk in its office at Madras as per order, dated 22 October 1951, in case No. 284 of 1951 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras.
(3.) THE petitioner was employed as a clerk in the National Bank of India, Ltd. , and for some reason or other which it is unnecessary to canvass now, his services were dispensed with. Under Section 41 of the Madras Act No. XXXVI of 1947 he filed an. appeal before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, who by the order aforesaid set aside the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner but there was no direction in the order that the petitioner should be re-employed as such. The last paragraph of the Commissioner's order is as follows: In spite of this I am constrained to set aside the order of the management, dated 29 June 1951, as no procedure as contemplated in Section 41 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, has been followed by the management. It has been admitted by the assistant accountant that no charge of misconduct was made and no inquiry was held, by the management before terminating the services of the petitioner. Since the statutory requirements contemplated therein have not been followed by the bank, I have no option but to set aside the order of discharge. Since the petitioner was not reemployed after the reversal of the order dispensing with his services, the manager of the bank as the employer was proceeded with under Section 45 of the Act for contravening the order made under Section 25, and a fine of Rs. 25 was imposed upon him. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner now seeks extraordinary powers of this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in the bank.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.