ORDER
M. Srinivasan J.
1. The Petitioner in the writ petition was working as an Inspector Grade-I in the first respondent company. Charges were framed against him and he was dismissed from service on 6-6-1980. He filed an appeal on 18-8-1980 which was rejected by order dated 28-1-1981. Thereafter he filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the second respondent. One of the objections raised by the first respondent was that the first respondent was exempted from the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act by virture of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. The objection was over-ruled by the second respondent as he placed reliance on a decision of Kerala Full Bench in Canara Bank v. Appellate Authority (1981) L I.C.1043. The second respondent also went into the merits and gave findings against the writ petitioner. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the second respondent.
2. In this writ petition, the order of the second respondent is challenged by the petitioner on merits. Recently, the Supreme Court considered an appeal against the judgment of the Kerala Full Bench along with other matters. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that a nationalised Bank is an establishment covered by Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, and, therefore, it is exempted from the provision of the Act. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in C.V. Raman etc. v. Bank of India etc. (1988) 2 L.LJ.423 will apply with equal force to nationalised Insurance Companies and they will also be establishments under the Central Government within the purview of Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the second respondent was unsustainable as he was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act as against the first respondent herein. Consequently the appeal preferred by him before the second respondent should have been dismissed on that ground itself. It follows that the writ petition is not maintainable as the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent was itself not maintainable.
3. Then the question will be whether the findings given by the second respondent on merits would have any effect in future proceedings. The analogous position has been considered by this Court in Ramasami Reddi v. Thalavasal Marudi Reddi C 19 L.W. 347 ; 47 Mad. 453. In that case, a suit in ejectment was filed in which the defendants raised a plea that they were entitled to occupancy rights in the land and that in any event the suit was not maintainable as there was no notice to quit. The District Munsif held that the defendant had no occupancy rights and the suit was not maintainable as there was no notice to quit. Consequently, he dismissed the suit. On appeal, that decree was affirmed. On second appeal that was affirmed by this Court on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. Subsequently, the plaintiff gave a proper notice to quit, and instituted a suit in ejectment. The defendants set up the claim of occupancy rights once again. The plaintiff pleaded that in the earlier suit their claim of occupancy rights was found against by the Munsif and it would be res judicata in the later suit. The plea of res judicata was negatived by the Court holding that once a suit is held to be not maintainable, any finding on merits will not have any effect and will not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings.
4. Applying the principles laid down in the above case, it is to be held that the finding given by the second respondent in the appeal before him against the writ petitioner herein on merits will not have any effect in any subsequent proceedings which may be lawfully instituted by the writ petitioner as against the first respondent. It will be certainly open to the writ petitioner to institute such proceedings as may be available to him under the law as against the first respondent for appropriate reliefs.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.