Section 5 of the Act held invalid for excessive delegation.

The petitioner abovenamed has filed the present writ petition for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in the order dated 20.11.1987 in T.S.E.A.No.27 of and quash the same.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are as follows: Air France has an office at Madras and the 2nd respondent was the District Manager, along with five other employees. petitioner management decided to close its Madras office for economic reasons. compliance with the requirements of Sec.25 FFA, under which a statutory notice of days to various authorities of the State and the affected parties has to be given, by dated 8.1.1987, the notice intimating the management’s intention to close its Madras with effect from 31.3.1987 was sent to all the authorities prescribed under the Act as well to the affected parties. The services of the workmen were terminated in accordance with and they were offered their full terminal compensation.

3. The conditions of service of the supervisory and managerial staff are governed regulations and conditions of service agreed by the parties. In terms of Clause 8.1 of said Regulations, by letter dated 27.2.1987, the services of the 2nd respondent terminated with effect from 31.3.1987. But, as the 2nd respondent has averred that the letter reached him only on 6.3.1987, the petitioner management paid him his salary April, 1987 also, ineffect, his services stand terminated from 1.5.1987. The 2nd respondent was admittedly the District Manager of the Madras office of the petitioner and therefore, Sec.4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) excludes its applicability to the 2nd respondent. The above section has included in the Act by the competent Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu. power to legislate for State vests in the State Legislative Assembly and that the Legislative Assembly alone is competent to amend, modify or repeal any substantive provision of the Act. There is no change made in Sec.4(l)(a) of the Act by the Legislative Assembly.

4. However, the 2nd respondent contended in his reply affidavit before the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) that by G.O.Ms.No.4074, Industries, Labour and (Labour), dated 5.10.1966, all the provisions of the Act have been made applicable to of persons mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-sec(l) of Sec.4 of the Act. The aforesaid G.O., issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.5 Act. According to the petitioner, Sec.5 of the Act has delegated powers to the State to the provisions to any class of persons by notification, but the power does not go and go to the extent of allowing the delegate (in this case the State) to amend or change substantive provision of the Act itself. This is a function which can be done only by Legislative Assembly. That apart, Sec.4(1) (a) of the Act deliberately excludes applicability of the Act to persons employed in any establishment in a position management. It is settled law that conditions of service of management employees governed by the conditions of service entered into by the parties under the common master and servant. In the circumstances, it is submitted by the petitioner/management even if it is assumed that Sec.4(1)(a) of the Act has lost its force by virtue of the mentioned notification of the State Government, the said notification will be hit by the Constitution of India and be void to the extent of its repugnancy in its application managerial or supervisory officers whose conditions of service are governed by agreements entered into by the employees and employers under the Contract Act, which is a Central.

5. According to the petitioner/management, the termination of service of the 2nd respondent is in full conformity with Rule 8.1 of the Regulations and Conditions of Service entered by the parties, which is ex