S VARADARAJAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has filed this writ petition to issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), the first respondent herein relating to the impugned order dated 15. 3. 1984 passed in T. N. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1983 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to dispose off the appeal in T. N. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1983.

(2.) THE petitioner in his affidavit, filed in support of writ petition, has averred that he was appointed by the second respondent by their order dated 14. 5. 1980 as sales representatives and later he was promoted as a Marketing Manager by an order dated 11. 5. 1982. He had put in nearly two years and 5 months of service. His services were terminated with effect from 6. 10. 1982 without any notice or pay in lieu of notice and that, too, without assigning any reasons. He has further stated that at the time of his termination from service, he was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 600.

(3.) AGAINST this order of termination, the petitioner sent a representation to Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 7. 10. 1982 and that petition was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who is the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the concerned Labour Officer. The Labour Officer in turn has found that the case of the petitioner will not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since the petitioner was not a 'workman' within the definition of Sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Later on the legal advise, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 41 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, on 14. 2. 1983 with an application to condone the delay of 100 days for preferring the appeal. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947) by the impugned order dated 15. 3. 1984 has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus.