Judgment :- K. Veeraswami, C.J. In our opinion the order of the learned Judge does not call for interference. This was a case where an employee, who has put in more than six months of service, had been removed from the service without giving requisite notice. No enquiry was held. On a petition under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the Commissioner set aside the order of removal on the ground that there was no enquiry. What was contended was that the Commissioner himself, in exercise of his appellate power under sub-s. (2) of S. 41, should have taken evidence and satisfied whether the removal was justified. But this contention did not prevail with the learned Judge, and we think quite rightly. It is true, as held in Srirangam Janopakara Bank Ltd., v. Ranganathan, 1964 (1) LLJ 222], the Commissioner, in the exercise of his appellate power, has the right to take additional evidence. But that case is no authority for the proposition that where there is no enquiry at all held by the management, the Commissioner can be called upon under S. 41(2) to hold a trail in exercise of his appellate power, take evidence and then satisfy himself as to whether the removal was justified or not. The Commissioner's order was right. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.