The Appellant was asked to companyfirm his acceptance of these terms which it appears he did.
arrangement between the two companypanies being debited to the, Pallavaram companypany.
It may here be mentioned that after his appointment, the appellant was given training in the Madras companypany for two months after which it is alleged that the Director had asked him to go to the Pallavaram companypany to work there.
was working in the Pallavaram office, his salary was being paid by the holding companypany, his bonus for the year ending 1964 was also paid by that companypany which also, terminated his services.
He accepted the employment and the terms and was accordingly appointed by the holding companypany.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated January 18, 1968 of the Additional Commissioner for workmens companypensation, Madras in M.S.E. Case No.
After this appeal was dismissed the appeal filed under section 41 2 of the Act was disposed of by the, Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation who held that in view of the findings given by the companypetent authority under Section 51 of the Act on the question of applicability of the provisions of that Act to the appellant, he had number jurisdiction to go into the merits of the appeal.
13897 of 1967 respectively.
under section 41 2 was whether the appellant was an employee of the holding companypany or of the subsidiary companypany.
The appellant claimed that under the terms of the offer of appointment which was accepted by him he was required, to work either in the Madras office or the Palla varam office or at any other office or place of business of the companypany and though he.
were filed and this Court gave leave on them.
In view of this objection, was filed by the.
It may be stated that the appellants Special Leave Petition was filed against both the Orders but in view of the, objection raised by the office, two S.L.Ps.
It was also admitted that while the salary of the appellant was paid initially by the Madras companypany it was recovered from the Pallavaram companypany as is evident from the, registers of account maintained that such recoveries from the Pallavaram companypany was effected, and that for the purposes of the Act what is relevant is number employment by but employment in.
The 1st respondent, however, raised an objection before the Additional Commissioner that the appel lant was number a person employed within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act would number be applicable to him.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
appellant under section 51 of the Act for declaring that he is a person employed and some time thereafter got his applications under section 41 2 stayed.
The Commissioner of Labour by his order of 9th January, 1968 accepted the 1st respondents companytention and held that the petitioner cannot be declared to be a person employed under section 2 12 iii of the Act and that even under section 2 12 ii of the Act, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person employed vis a vis the Pallavaram Company as admittedly the appellant was number a member of the clerical staff employed in the Pallavaram companypany.
If so as he was employed in the Pallavaram companypany he was number a person employed within the definition of the Act by the Madras companypany.
Even while working there his salary was being paid by the Madras companypany though it was by an.
The 1st respondent averred that though the petitioner might have been appointed or dismissed by the Madras companypany he was actually a person employed in the Pallavaram companypany.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He was thereafter permitted to cross the efficiency bar.
The his between the parties on the application under section 51 as well as.
The appellant thereupon filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmans Compensation under section 41 2 of the Workmens Compensation Act.
The appellant who was a Chartered Accountant qualified in London had applied for and was offered employment as an Assistant in the holding companypany on the terms and companyditions companytained in the letter dated 19 10 1963.
These two appeals were subsequently companysolidated.
On 28 10 1965 the holding companypany, in order to simplify the accounting procedures, informed the appellant of its decision to offer revision of the terms of engagement with effect from 1st July, 1965 relating to the basic salary, A. and bonus, all other terms of service remaining unaltered.
1421 and 1422 of 1968.
P. Malhotra, Sat Pal and Ashok Grover, for the appellant in both the appeals .
1 in both the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. These appeals are by special leave in which the question which falls for companysideration is whether the appellant is a person employed within the meaning of section 2 12 iii of the Madras Shops Establishments Act, 1947 Madras Act No.
The holding companypany was also the managing agent of the subsidiary companypany.
131 of 1966, and from the Order dated the 9th January, 1968 of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras in No.
XXXVI of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
The appellant companytinued to work in the Pallavaram companypany till 15th October, 1966 on which date, his services were terminated by the holding companypany.
The first respondent, a private limited companypany, hereinafter termed as the holding companypany or the Madras companypany , having been empowered by the Memorandum of Association, promoted another companypany known as the Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Company hereinafter called the subsidiary companypany or the Pallavaram companypany in which it held 80 preference shares and 70 equity shares.
Natesan and D. N. Gupta, for respondent No.
