LAXMI VISHNU MILLS LTD Vs. M R BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Case No. 93 of 1971. The short facts are as follows:

(2.) Respondent 1 joined the services of the petitioner on 1 February 1969, as its Madras representative-. He was paid his salary at Madras. On 1 March 1971, ho was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 28 February 1971. Contending that the termination was illegal in that the writ petitioner failed to give a month's notice or salary in lieu thereof as required under S. 41 of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and no reasonable cause has also been adduced, he filed the appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation praying for setting aside the order of termination. In the counter-statement the writ petitioner centended that in 1969, the petitioner was desirous of testing the feasibility of an expansion into Southern markets by opening and conducting an agency. With that view respondent 1 was appointed as sales representative on 28 January 1969. In that letter itself, it is stated that the appointment was purely experimental in nature and the possibility of abolishing the post on the pilot project was also there, if it is found unsatisfactory. The duty of respondent 1 was to tour in Southern area and to canvass orders for the writ petitioner. He was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 700. After two years as the pilot project was not producing satisfactory results, the agency was abolished. This resulted in the termination of the temporary and experimental services of respondent. This, therefore, would constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause for the termination respondent 1's services. It is further contended that respondent 1 was not entitled to any protection under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and that being so, the Additonal Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation would have no jurisdiction to grant him any relief as he was not a person employed under the Act. A plea was also advanced stating that respondent 1 was in the position of a manager, his work involving touring and canvassing and there was no establishment as such to which he was alloted. On these pleas, it is prayed that the appeal might be dismissed.

(3.) The Additional Commissioner held that he had jurisdiction and that respondent 1 had to undertake tours only incidental to his main work. Lastly, it held that there was violation of S. 41 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act in that one month's notice had not been given, nor one month's salary in lieu of such notice was paid and on these grounds he set aside the order of termination. It is in these circumstances, the present writ had come to be referred.