V. Palanivelu Odayar vs P. Jagannadhan

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—This Revision Petition raises the question of the competency of an appeal to the Revenue Court from an order

passed by the Conciliation Officer u/s 12(2) of the Madras Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyals Protection Act, 1952. The Conciliation Officer,

purporting to act u/s 12(3) of the Act, directed the restoration of the respondent to the service of the petitioner who is the landlord. The landlord

filed an appeal to the Revenue Court against the order so directing him to take back the pannaiyal. The Revenue Court has rejected the appeal on

the ground that no appeal lies in regard to an order u/s 12(3). Mr. Venkataraman, who appears for the landlord, contends that the order of the

Revenue Court is wrong as the petitioner has a right of appeal by virtue of an express provision in that regard u/s 13(2) of the Act. Section 13

refers to adjudication of disputes between the landlord and a pannaiyal. But that jurisdiction is given to the Conciliation Officer only in respect of

cases not otherwise expressly provided for under the Act. If there is an adjudication of dispute between landlord and a pannaiyal under the

provisions of Section 13, there can be no doubt that there will be a right of appeal to an aggrieved party under Sub-section (2) to that section. The

question then is whether the order of the Conciliation Officer in the instant case can be said to come within the terms of Section 13. Mr.

Venkataraman contends that, as Section 13 refers to all disputes generally between landlord and a pannaiyal, it should comprehend a dispute in

regard to the dismissal of a pannaiyal as well. It is no doubt true that the terms of Section 13 are wide,; but it must be noticed that the section itself

opens by Stating ""Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act."" Section 12 is an express provision in regard to a particular class of disputes

between the landlord and a pannaiyal, namely, that relating to the dismissal. That category of disputes between the landlord and pannaiyal should

therefore be held to be taken out of the ambit of the authority given to the Conciliation Officer u/s 13. It is, however, contended that, as both under

Sections 12 and 13, the jurisdiction to decide disputes is given to the Conciliation Officer and as the wording of Section 13 is wide enough to

include all category of cases, the beneficent provisions as to appeal would apply to the instant case as well. I am unable to agree. As stated before,

Section 13 does not in terms apply to cases covered by Section 12. It is however contended that there is no understandable reason as to why the

Legislature should confer a right of appeal to the Revenue Court from an order u/s 13(1) and why it should not confer such a right in regard to an

order u/s 12(3), which practically compels the landowner to take back a pannaiyal against his choice. I am unable to see any force in this

contention. If a'' statute does not provide a right of appeal in a particular case, there would be no purpose in examining the reason for it; for, if the

reason is not good, we cannot imply a right of appeal where there is none. It may be that the Legislature thought that, in the case of orders directing

pannaiyals to be restored to service, there should be a finality and no right of appeal. In most cases pannaiyals would be too poor to take up a

matter in appeal. Secondly, it might have thought that there was no necessity for an appeal from the point of view of the landowner also because if

he is unwilling to re-entertain the pannaiyal, he need only pay some compensation and be under no further obligation to take him back. The

provisions of Section 12 are clear; there is no right of appeal conferred against order thereunder. I am therefore of opinion that the Revenue Court

was right when it held that the appeal by the landlord against the order directing him to re-entertain the pannaiyal was not maintainable.

The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.