At the end of this period,, the appellant received a letter from the Operations Manager of the respondent informing him that he had done his work as a probationer satisfactorily.
The respondent thereupon moved the Commissioner of Labour under s. 51 of the Act to determine this question.
Commissioner for Workmens Compensation under s. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 No.
At this time, as Operations Assistant the appellant was drawing Rs.
That is why the said Bench issued a writ of certiorari companyrecting the finding of the Commissioner and companysequently allowed both the writ petitions filed by the respondent.
In October,, 1957, as a result of some misunderstandings between him and the respondent, he was again placed on probation from 1st October, 1957 for a period of six months in the same post of Operations Assistant.
This order was challenged by the respondent by preferring a writ petition No.
At this time, the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour under s. 51 had been pronounced and the said order was binding between the parties and was final.
Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madras.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
Under the said section, the Commissioner of Labour is companypetent to decide questions of status and that is why the respondent moved the Commissioner of Labour.
The appellant was number prepared to take the post of the Senior Operations Supervisor, with the result that on the 2nd May, 1958, the management of the respondent terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 30th April, 1958.
The appellant then filed an appeal before the Addl.
521 of 1959 challenging the order of the Commissioner of Labour.
By this application, the appellant companyplained that the order terminating his services was invalid inasmuch as it had been passed without companyplying with the mandatory provisions of s. 41 of the Act.
139 and 140 of 1959.
1,000 p.m. The appellant was then asked to take leave which was due to him, and when on returning from his leave he reported for duty, the management refused to allow him to join duty as an Operations Assistant.
It has been passed with the object of providing for the regulation of companyditions of work in shops, companymercial establishments, restaurants, theaters and other establishments, and for certain other purposes.
On the merits, he made findings in favour of the appellant, rejected the companytentions raised by the respondent against the work of the appellant and its quality and in the result, set aside the order of termination passed by the respondent on the 2nd May, 1958.
These two latter officers are respondents 2 3 in the present appeals, whereas the employer, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company is respondent No.
That is how the two writ petitions came to be filed.
573 of 1959 were dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
36 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
Mean 1034 while, the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation took up the appeal for hearing.
At the end of six months, the respondent declared that he had companypleted his probation satisfactorily.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. These two appeals raise a short question about the validity of the writ of certiorari which has been ordered to be issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in allowing a Letters Patent Appeal preferred before it by the respondent M s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras.
581 and 582 of 1963.
In both these writ petitions, the respondent impleaded the appellant as well as the Commissioner of Labour and the Addl.
It is against these decisions that the two present appeals have been brought to this Court by the appellant with a certificate issued by the High Court.
Before the Addl.
Commissioner for Workmens, Compensation, the respondent filed a petition alleging that the Addl.
Commissioner and urged that the appellant companyld number invoke the provisions of s. 41 of the Act, because he was an employer as defined under the Act and number an employee.
The Commissioner recorded the evidence led by the respondent as well as the appellant, and on the 12th January, 1959 he pronounced his decision that the appellant was employed under the respondent and he was number in a position of management.
The decision of Balakrishna Ayyar J. was challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal under the Utters Patent before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
521 of 1959 and as a companysequence, the said writ 1035 petition as well as W.P. No.
573/1959 before the Madras High Court.
The appellant T. Prem Sagar was appointed by the respondent as its Road Engineer at Madras on the 5th February, 1951.
In view of the said order, the respondent took up an alternative plea before the Addl.
December 16, 1963.
Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to deal with the appellants appeal in view of the fact that the appellant was a person employed in the respondents Head Office at Madras in a position of management, and so, the provisions of the said Act were inapplicable to him.
Govind Swaminathan, P. Ram Reddy, A.V.V. Nair and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent In both the appeals .
K. Venugopal and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant In both the appeals .
The Act received the assent of the Governor General on the 2nd February, 1948 and came into force on the 10th February, 1948.
In January, 1952, he was promoted as Operations Assistant on a salary of Rs.
450 p.m., and as such, he was placed on probation for a period of six months.
Even so, it was alleged that he did number show capacity for growth with the organisation and on that account, he was offered the lower post of Senior Operations Supervisor.
It appears that this post was specifically created for the appellant 1033 and it carried a salary of Rs.
The respondent then moved the Madras High Court by Writ Petition No.
