Madras High Court
The South Indian Bank Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 3 November, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
and WMP.(MD)No.6748 of 2021
1.The South Indian Bank Ltd..,
Rep by its Managing Director & CEO
SIB House, TB Road
Mission Quarters
Thirissur 680 001.
2.The South Indian Bank Ltd.
Rep by its Branch Manager
Branch: Anandavadi
(Via) Rayanpuram
Ariyalur District 621 718.
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour
Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops &
Establishments Act
Tiruchirappalli.
2.Thiru Paul Varied Cheruvathoor
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records of the first respondent in TNSE No.1 of 2008 and quash its
order dated 04.03.2021.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm )
WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Raghventhiri,
for M/s.Gopalan T.S.
For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
Special Government Pleader.
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
ORDER
The second respondent, an employee of the petitioner/Bank was dismissed from service on 24.03.2005. Any officer aggrieved by the order of dismissal is having an appeal remedy as per the South Indian Bank Officers Conduct (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 2004 and the second respondent preferred an appeal before the Chairman/appellate authority. It was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 16.06.2005 confirming the original order of dismissal. The regulation also provide for a second appeal before the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. Therefore, he has filed a second appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner / Bank has 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 raised a primary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the first respondent to entertain the petition filed by the second respondent that the second respondent was working as Manager at Anandhawadi branch, within panchayat limit and the applicability of the Act to panchayat was notified by the Government only in the year 2018 vide G.O.Ms.162 dated 14.11.2018. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the second respondent before the first respondent/authority under the Act in the year 2008 prior to the notification, cannot be maintained on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the same was not accepted and the first respondent by his order dated 04.03.2021 has rejected this primary objection. This order of the first respondent dated 04.03.2021 is challenged by the petitioner/Bank in this writ petition.
2.In fact, this is a second round of litigation with regard to this preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the first respondent in entertaining the appeal filed by the second 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 respondent. The petitioner/Bank has also raised another primary objection with regard to the limitation that the appeal under Section 41(2) of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of 30 days, however, it was filed with a delay of two years and nine months. In this regard, the petitioner/Bank has filed IA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in TNSE.No.1 of 2008. Both the applications were dismissed by the first respondent by order dated 02.09.2009, against which, the petitioner/Bank filed writ petitions in WP. (MD)Nos.1733 & 1734 of 2010. Both the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by a common order dated 02.12.2014 holding that there is no delay in view of the proceedings before the Chairman and Board of Directors, however, with regard to the maintainability of the claim on the ground of jurisdiction is concerned, the writ Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the authority while deciding the main issue.
3.The petitioner/ Bank has challenged the order of the writ Court by filing appeals in WA.(MD)Nos.67 & 68 of 2015. These 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 writ appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench, by judgment dated 04.02.2015, remitting back to the first respondent to decide the issue on jurisdiction as well as limitation. While considering the issue afresh, the first respondent has once again dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner in IA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 by his order dated 04.03.2021 and the same is the subject matter of this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Bank submitted that the second respondent was working as Branch Manager at Anandavadi Branch during the year 2005, wherein the disciplinary proceedings was initiated and he was terminated from the service. Anandavadi is a village lies within the panchayat limit. Though the Act has been made applicable to the entire State, Section 1(3) of the Act come into force in certain areas such as, Madras, all the municipalities constituted under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 and in all areas within the jurisdiction of panchayat, only on the notification issued by 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 the State Government. The State Government has issued notification vide GO.Ms.No.162 dated 14.11.2018 to extend the provisions of the Act to all the areas of the Tamil Nadu including Panchayat, with effect from 14.11.2018 and therefore, the applicability of the Act to the Panchayat, including Anandavadi, was only with effect from 14.11.2018 and it cannot be applied retrospectively for entertaining the appeal under the Act, as against the order of punishment passed in the year 2005 confirmed by the Board of Director in the year 2008.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments in support of his contention:-
i)Management of Akkur Primary Agricultrual Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Gnanasekaran reported in 2007(3) LLN 516.
ii)Management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Personnel Department, Administrative Office, Karur Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) reported in 2004 (1) LLN 621.6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in WA.(MD)No.67 & 68 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015 in the earlier round of litigation and submitted that the Division Bench has considered these judgments along with the information which has been obtained under RTI Act and then only it has directed the first respondent to decide the issue in accordance with these judgments and the information which was provided under RTI Act. However, the first respondent, without considering these position of law and also by relying on the subsequent Government Order issued in the year 2018 that it is applicable to Anandavadi Branch, dismissed the application once again. According to the learned counsel, the reasoning of the authority that the Act was applicable is erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The authority has failed to consider the issue that on the date of termination, the second respondent worked in an area where the Act was not applicable and the consequential notification would not cure this defect to maintain the petition before the first respondent. 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
7.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293, D.P.Maheswari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others submitted that the second respondent was dismissed from service in the year 2005 and the Management is dragging this issue for the past 20 years by raising this preliminary objection on technical grounds. This attitude of the Management, in fact, has been condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment. The learned counsel has also relied on the original order passed by the first respondent dated 11.08.2008 and submitted that with regard to the jurisdiction of the applicability of SARFAESI Act, the Management has taken a different stand in yet another proceedings by relying upon the jurisdiction of the Head office at Chennai, whereas in the proceedings before the first respondent they are taking a stand that it is falls within the panchayat limit and therefore, it not having the jurisdiction before the 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 notification. Anganwadi branch is situated in panchayat limit and the regional office lies at Chennai.
8.He further submitted that this dual stand of the Management has been taken into consideration by the first respondent in deciding this preliminary objection filed by the Management in IA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009. However, this ground has not been appreciated by the writ Court as well as by the Division Bench. The learned counsel further submitted that the Management has taken two different stands. Similar appeals have been preferred before the authority under the Act by the employees who were working in other Branches of the petitioner Bank in the rural area from Tamil Nadu. However, the Bank is raising preliminary objection and stalling this proceedings from the year 2005 without any remedy to the person, who was dismissed from service in the year 2005. According to the learned counsel the Bank is taking two different stands discriminating their own employees.
9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
9.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.
10.The second respondent, who was working as Branch Manager, was dismissed from service in the year 2005. Statutory appeals have been preferred by the second respondent before the Chairman and the Board of Directors and the same were also dismissed and therefore, the second respondent has approached the first respondent, authority under the Act, under Section 41(2) of the Act. The Act was notified in the year 1948 with effect from 10.02.1948. Section 1 of the Act deals with its extent and commencement, which is extracted hereunder:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement (1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (2) It extends to the whole of the 1 [State] of Tamil Nadu.
(3) (a) It shall come into force in the following areas on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint:
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
(i) the City of Madras,
(ii) all the municipalities constituted under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Madras Act V of 1920), and
(iii) all areas within the jurisdiction of panchayats which, under rule 2 of Schedule III to the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act X of 1950), should be deemed to be constituted under that Act, and which immediately before the commencement of that Act ,were classified by the State Government as major panchayats and all areas within the jurisdiction of panchayats constituted or reconstituted under that Act which, for the time being, are classified by the State Government as Class I Panchayats under section 5 (1) (a) of that Act.]
b) The 1 [State] Government may, by notification, direct that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall come in to force in any other area on such date as may be specified in such notification.
11.The Government vide GO.Ms.No.162 dated 14.11.2018 has issued a notification under the Act that the Act shall come into force to all the areas in the State of Tamilnadu where the provisions of the Act have not been brought into force. 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
12.The second respondent while he was working in Anandavadi Branch, within the Panchayat limit, was dismissed from service in the year 2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, with regard to the very same Branch, when SARFAESI proceedings was initiated, an objection was raised by the Bank that Chennai Regional office of the Bank has the administrative and territorial jurisdiction over Anandavadi branch and therefore, issue ought to have been referred/raised only to the Regional office having the administrative and territorial control over the Anandavadi Branch. This stand taken up by the Bank, in fact, has been taken as a ground by the first respondent in deciding the IA.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
The Chennai Regional office of the bank where he joined the services initially, was exercising the control and supervision of the Branch Anandavadi where he was working at the time of dismissal. To the objections raised 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 against a SARFAESI notice issued by the bank, the bank had in their reply dated 17.2.2006 (produced as Exhibit No.1) had stated in page 2 of the reply: Therefore, Chennai Regional Office of the bank, which has administrative and territorial jurisdiction over Anandavadi Branch has necessary jurisdiction to issue the notice.
13.However, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier round of litigation has remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on other aspects. This ground specifically considered by the first respondent in deciding the jurisdiction was not appraised before the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. When the Bank has taken a plea as to the same Anandavadi Branch on the territorial jurisdiction that it falls within the control of the Regional Office Chennai, it cannot take a different stand in the proceedings which is pending with the first respondent.
13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021
14.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293, D.P.Maheswari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, wherein it has been held as under:-
It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Art. 226 and Art. 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections journeyings up and down. It is also worth while remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 Art. 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Art. 136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.
15.In view of the above discussions and judgment, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 To The Joint Commissioner of Labour Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act Tiruchirappalli.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm ) WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 B.PUGALENDHI,J gns WP.(MD)No.8949 of 2021 03.11.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 12:37:55 pm )