Case: Remington Rand Of India Ltd Vs. Thiru R. Jambulingam

2. The respondent was in employment under the appellant company at the Tirchirapalli 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 secondly that he was on the said day privately doing some repair work of a typewriter in the premises belonging to the Eswari Institute of Commence, Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was directed to show cause on November 17, 1970 and was placed under suspension. After receipt of his reply to the charge-sheet, a domestic enquiry was held in which witnesses were examined. The respondent examined only himself on his behalf and the appellant examined three witnesses including the Manager of the Tiruchirapalli Branch and the companys doctor. The enquiry Officer found both the charges to be established and on receipt of his report the management passed an order of dismissal.

Court's reasoning:
6. It is rather extraordinary that even though the Commissioner (sic) (Tribunal) at the instance of the appellant had rejected the plea of protected workman the management now seeks to raise a plea of ouster of jurisdiction before the Commissioner on the self-same ground. This in our opinion cannot be allowed. Besides the appellant submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and had not raised any objection to its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. That being so we have not allowed the learned Counsel to raise the plea of jurisdiction before us in this Court for the first time in this appeal. We may, however, observed that while even an order of approval is passed under Sec. 33 (2) of the I. D. Act, an industrial dispute can be raised by either party and an appropriate reference can be later made by the Government under Section 10 of the I. D. Act. The order passed under Section 41 of the Shops Act in appeal before the Commissioner is on the other hand, binding on the employer and the employee under sub-section (3) of that section Since, however, we have not permitted the learned Counsel to argue the matter it is not necessary to pursue this matter anyfind that the case of Padmanabhan was that at about 11.10 a. m. on November, 2, 1970 he saw the respondent working on one of the typewriters in the premises of the Eswari Institute of Commerce. There is, therefore, absolutely no foundation for the contention advanced by the learned Counsel that the Tribunal (sic) (Commissioner?) ignored the evidence of the doctor. On the other hand his evidence ran counter to the stand taken by the management.8. Mr. Natesan also submitted that the Commissioner should not have interfered with the order passed in the domestic enquiry since there was no violation of the principles of natural justice nor was the finding perverse. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner is an appellate jurisdiction and is of wider scope unlike that of the Tribunal in an application under Section 33 of the I. D. Act. The Commissioner is competent to rehear the matter completely and come to its own conclusion after re-appreciation of the evidence. There is no legal bar in entertaining additional evidence if that is necessary in the interest of justice. The rule of law which has been laid down by this Court with regard to jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in an application under section 33 of the I. D. Act in interfering with the order of dismissal passed in a domestic enquiry is not applicable to the case of an appeal before the Commissioner provided for under Section 41 of the Shops Act. We are therefore unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel.