MADURA COATS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD. Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE TAMIL NADU SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENTS ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions have been filed against the order of reinstatement of the respective 2nd respondent herein, ordered by the 1st respondent herein, and praying for quashment of the same as wholly unsustainable.

(2.) The brief facts as could be culled out from the petitions are that the respective 2nd respondent herein were in the services of the petitioner herein since April, 1999 and performing their duties in the cadre of temporary sales Assistant in the petitioner society. However, terming their appointment to be not in consonance with the Bylaws of the petitioner/society, the show cause notice was issued to them by the petitioner on 9.12.03 and, thereafter, their services were terminated vide order dated 31.7.08. Challenging the said order of termination as not in accordance with the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act as also Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respective 2nd respondent herein claimed the status of permanent employee as per the provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act, as the said 2nd respondent had worked for more than 480 days within a continuous period of 2 years. The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, after hearing the parties, set aside the orders of dismissal dated 31.7.08 passed against the 2nd respondents herein. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioner/society.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Shops and Establishments Act doesn't employ the term 'workmen' or 'employee' and if at all the 2nd respondents claim to be employees/workmen under the petitioner, the course open to the 2nd respondents is to file petition under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/society is not an 'establishment' as defined u/s 2 (6) of the Shops and Establishments Act and, therefore, the petitions before the 1st respondent is wholly impermissible, as the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by the 2nd respondents.