(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in TSE.37/92, dated 1.8.1994.
(2.) The case of the petitioner are as follows. The petitioner is a Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society and it was also having bunk stalls in which the Forest Products were sold. The first respondent was appointed as sales man on a temporary basis as daily coolie. The stalls have been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation by virtue of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277 of Environment and Forest (FR.CORPN) Department, dated 20.7.1992. The business in the stalls was wound up with effect from 30.6.1992. The first respondent herein was appointed temporarily even without an appointment order and on coming to know of the proposal to transfer the stalls in favour of TAN TEA, he sent a letter dated 23.6.1992 to the Government with a copy marked to the first respondent requesting the Government to transfer him to TAN TEA along with the bunk. The petitioner has recommended the case of the first respondent by the endorsement dated 24.6.1992. The first respondent has been served with an order dated 1.9.92, wherein, he was informed that pursuant to the Government Order, dated 20.7.1992, for want of vacancy, he has been removed from service on 1.9.1992. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent in TSE No.37 of 1992 praying for reinstatement under Sec. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The petitioner herein contended in the appeal that, the first respondent was appointed on a daily temporary basis and the appeal filed by the first respondent was not maintainable. The second respondent allowed the appeal by order dated 1.8.1992. The second respondent failed to appreciate the facts that the first respondent has been appointed orally on a temporary basis and without wages during holidays and therefore, he is not entitled to get the relief. The second respondent has erred in passing the order since he failed to note that the stalls were handed over to TAN TEA and there is no employment available with the petitioner society in view of the Government Order and therefore, there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the order passed by the petitioner, terminating the services of the first respondent. Hence the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
(3.) The first respondent, in his counter, has contended that, he was appointed in the petitioner society on 9.6.1985 at D.M.S., Complex, Madras -6. Later, he was transferred to the stall at Secretariat Compound, during September 1986 and he was working continuously without any break for nearly eight years. The first respondent has further submitted that, no opportunity was given to him to explain and he was served with the order of dismissal on 1.9.1992. The first respondent has also filed a claim petition under Sec. 33(c)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act seeking direction to the respondent to pay the salary due to him. The first respondent is entitled to reinstatement.