N PALANIAMMAL Vs. PASUR PUDUPPALAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order in T.N.S.E.No.8 of 1991 dated 3.5.1993 and for directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and other attendant benefits.

(2.) Petitioner was employed under the first respondent in a Fair Price Ration Shop in late 1970s. While she was continuing so for more than a decade, her services were terminated by order dated 22.8.1991 on the ground of merger of fair price shop with another shop. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 on the ground that no notice had been issued nor any compensation had been paid as contemplated under Section 41(1)of the Act. The Appellate Authority by order dated 3.5.1993 found that the order of termination was justified and for a reasonable cause, but neither notice had been given nor wages in lieu of one month notice had been paid. Accordingly the appellate authority following the ratio of the decision reported in 1975(1) LLJ 159 directed that the present petitioner should be paid wages for the period upto the date of the order of the appellate authority in addition to one month wages. Thereafter the petitioner filed application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming various amounts. The aforesaid application was disposed of on 23.2.1995 recording that a memo had been filed by the petitioner and in view of the memo filed, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this writ application on 23.6.1995 claiming the reliefs already indicated earlier.

(3.) In the writ petition it has been contended that since notice had not been issued nor any retrenchment compensation had been paid, the order of termination was void under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.