R. GOVINDASAMY Vs. DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Salesman with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Salesman in a TASMAC Shop on contract basis by the respondent on 21.04.2004, after receipt of a caution deposit of Rs.20,000/- and his working hours was fixed as 08:00am to 12:00pm. It was further case of the petitioner that since his appointment was only on adhoc basis, there was no separate rule framed by TASMAC and when he was working in Shop No.1502, he was orally terminated from service with effect from 18.02.2005 on the ground that nobody was prepared to run the shop. It was also the case of the petitioner that since the closure of TASMAC Shop was on administrative reasons, he should have been accommodated in any other shops and till date, he has not been reinstated in service. It was stated that no procedure was followed in terminating the service of the petitioner and though several representations dated 17.05.2007, 28.08.2008 and 22.10.2009 were forwarded to the respondent, with a request to reinstate the petitioner, there was no response on the side of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the above direction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the oral order of termination, without following the procedures, is contrary to the settled proposition and the termination was made behind the back of the petitioner. He further submitted that when the petitioner was stopped from work on administrative exigency, duty is cast upon the respondent to provide alternate employment to the petitioner.