Termination of employee not termination simplication.

K.A. SWAMI, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dt. October 21, 1992, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5199/1984. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The Second respondent therein has come up in appeal. The first respondent/writ petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. February 27, 1984, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act in Appeal No. 12 of 1982. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dt. April 1, 1982, passed by the 1st respondent, terminating the services of the appellant and directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the appellant.

2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the bank in question was exempted from the purview of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and therefore, the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was not sustainable and that the matter has to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is not just and appropriate for this Court to go into the question about the sustainability of the order, terminating the services of the appellant, as it is open to the bank to justify the order of termination before the Industrial Tribunal by adducing evidence, and accordingly, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority passed under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and reserved liberty to the appellant to agitate the matter in accordance with law.

3. Before us it is contented by Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, Learned for the appellant that irrespective of the position of law, as to whether the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, was maintainable or not, even if an industrial dispute were to be raised the order could not have been sustained, as the case on hand is one, in which, the order of termination of service has been passed casting a stigma on the appellant, without affording any opportunity whatsoever and without holding any enquiry. Now more than 12 years have elapsed and it would not at all be keeping in tune with the demand of justice, to direct the appellant to raise an industrial dispute, which would take several years. Consequently more than two decades would be lost, before the cause of the appellant is adjudicated. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that this court may go into the question, as the facts relevant to the issue, are undisputed, and determine, whether the order in question terminating the services of the appellant is valid in law. It is submitted that even as per the order of appointment, the appellant was entitled to be made permanent, and instead of making him permanent, his services were terminated and that the order of termination is not a termination simpliciter and it amounts to dismissal on the ground stated in the order itself, which casts stigma on the appellant.

4. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the bank that the appellant was only a temporary employee, he was never made permanent and his services were terminated as the management has lost confidence in him, because he obtained employment on furnishing a forged discharge certificate and on an enquiry made by the bank, the Defence Department informed the bank that no such discharge certificate was issued to the appellant and the discharge certificate produced by the appellant was a forged one. Therefore, the bank had no alternative but to terminate the services of the appellant in as much as the bank would not have challenged the communication sent by the defence authorities, since the appellant had served in the defence and obtained employment in the bank on that ground that he is a discharged defence personnel. It is also further contended that the order of termination made in these circumstances, does amount to termination simpliciter on loss of confidence in the employee. In addition, it is submitted that the