Validity of the order of termination.

The second respondent was the employee of the petitioner as Senior Stenographer. By order dated 10th May 1978 her services were terminated. The said order reads as follows :-

"From

Bombay Ammonia (Madras) Private Ltd.

35, Mount Road,

Madras-600 002.

To

Mrs. P. Bosser.

13/8-B Jermiah Road,

Vepery,

Madras-600 007.

Ref :- PB/MR.

This confirms the discussion the under-signed had with you yesterday where as it was clearly pointed out to you that your conduct and attitude in the office and also your contacts outside the office have been prejudicial to the Company's interest in that the Management have been led to the irresistible conclusion that you have been passing on confidential and trade information of the Company to persons outside the Company not entitled or authorised to know whereby such persons had taken advantage of such information and acted prejudicially to the company affecting its business and contracts.

This also confirms the option given to you yesterday of finding yourself an alternative employment outside within a period of 3 months or to submit your resignation from the services of the Company when in addition to your gratuity, some ex-gratia payment was indicated or face discharge on the grounds of loss of confidence with consequential legal dues. It was explicitly stated that exercise by you of the options shall have to be made and indicated before to-day. We see by your silence despite your attending office today that your would rather face a discharge.

For the reasons explained in detail to you at the personal discussions held yesterday by the undersigned and set out in brief above, the Management losing confidence in you as a Senior Stenographer in the Company hereby discharge with payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice as well as legal dues as required by law.Please note your discharge takes effect from close of work today. You may arrange to collect your dues from the Cashier.

Sd/-

(M. MINTLER RAJ)

Managing Director.

Received the original letter and statement of settlement.

Received

P. Bosser/10.5.78" *

Aggrieved by the above order, the second respondent resorted to the appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', before the first respondent for redressal and relief. In the appeal petition this is what she stated inter alia other averments :

"A perusal of the order would show that her services have been dispensed with on a charge of misconduct without any enquiry. Therefore the order discharging her from service is illegal and contrary to Section. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act." *

The petitioner submitted an answer statement and paragraph 3 thereof runs in the following terms :

"The Management terminated the services of the petitioner by letter dated 10th May 1978 since her conduct and attitude in the office and also her contacts outside the office were prejudicial to the Company's discipline and interest in that the Management were led to irresistible conclusion that she has been passing on confidential and trade information of the Company to persons outside the Company not entitled or authorised to know. By her such act persons had taken advantage of information passed on which acted pre-judicially to the Company affecting its business and contracts" *

The second-respondent filed a memo, covering a ruling on the question of the petitioner leading any evidence before the first respondent and the said memorandum runs as follows :-

"The appellant submits ex facie the order of termination imputes misconduct against the appellant for the employee, and therefore termination of her services without holding any enquiry is illegal. Since her services have been dispensed with on a charge of misconduct not supported by an enquiry, the termination has got to be set aside on this ground itself and the Management cannot make good the defect by letting in evidence before this Hon'ble authority. The Appellant would request for a