A probationer is entitled to the benefits of S. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and the termination of a probationer's services must comply with the requirements of S. 41(1) of the Act.

Raju, J.

The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated March 15, 1988 in W.P. No. 386 of 1981 where under the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent before us praying for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated March 31, 1981 in TSE No. 32/1980 by the which the order of termination of the service of the appellant passed by the first respondent on June 14, 1980 came to be set aside in an appeal filed under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

2. The appellant was given employment under an order of appointment dated December 12, 1979 with reference to her application dated July 23, 1979 as a Composite on probation with effect from December 1, 1979. The earlier events are not relevant for purpose of our consideration and the rights of parties indisputably have to be considered only withe reference to the order dated December 12, 1979. AS could seen from the said order of appointment she was appointment on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400 per month (inclusive of allowance) and she will be on probation for a period of six months. The relevant terms of the orders of appointment in the regard are as follows :-

"4. She will be on probation for a period of six months during which time her services are terminable during which time her service are terminable any time without notice and she will not be entitled for any leave, bonus etc.

5. The confirmation of her services will be considered after six months if found satisfactory at the discretion of the management".

While so, by an order dated, June 14, 1980, due first respondent terminated the services of the appellant withe effect from close of business on June 14, 1980 in terms of para 4 of the appointment order referred to supra.

3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the second respondent under S.41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 contending that her termination was without rhyme or reason, that it is violative of S.41 in that neither any on notice of one month nor one month's wages in lieu thereof was given, that the order of termination was without any a reasonable cause, that since on the date of the order she has already completed six months' probation, she must be deemed to have been made permanent, that, therefore, the question of terminating here services did not arise, that the termination would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S.2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since the mandatory requirements of S.25F of the Act have not been complied withe and that the termination also lacked bona fides.

4. The first respondent-Management appears to have filed a reply that the appellant was initially working only as a causal on daily-rated wages as and when there was need, that such engagement was sporadic and not continuous, that she was only appointed as a probationer on a consolidated salary and not in a graded scale, that the office order dated December 6, 1979 was withdrawn and substituted by the order dated December 12, 1979, that during the period of probation, as per reports her performance was found extremely unsatisfactory and, therefore, here services were terminated in terms of paragraph 4 of the order and as per the stipulations contained in the very order of appointment and, therefore, no notice was required to be given and that the order of termination was reasonable and valid.

5. The second respondent, who is the appellate under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, considered the question as to whether the order of termination was in compliance with the provisions of S.41(1) of the Act and came to the conclusion that since the order of the termination on June 14, 1980 was actually made 14 days after the expiry of a period of six months from December 1, 1979, the Management ought to have complied with the provisions of S.41(1) of the Act and inasmuch as n