SUNDARESAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has questioned the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 dated 26.2.96 made in T.S.E. No.17 of 1995 holding that the petitioner had abandoned the service from 4.4.95 and the claim of the petitioner that he had been terminated from service cannot be accepted.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that nearly 20 workers were employed in the second respondent Cinema Theatre. The workers were denied their leave facilities, over time facilities and even the minimum wages guaranteed under the Minimum Wages Act. In order to secure those facilities, the petitioner and other workers joined the Madras Cinema Theatre Employees Union and made a complaint to the Inspector of Labour. The Assistant Inspector of Labour inspected the cinema theatre on 21.4.95 and obtained statement from the workers. Aggrieved by the above act of the petitioner, the petitioner was orally terminated from service on 22.4.1995. There were no charges framed, no enquiry conducted before the termination of the petitioner. Contending that the oral termination was contrary to the provisions of Section 41(i) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent questioning the termination. The said appeal was rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) WHAT is abandonment of service was considered by the Apex Court in the case of G.T. Lad and others v. Chemicals and Fibers of India, 1979 (1) LLJ 257 and the relevant paragraph reads as under: