M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.

The only point involved in this writ appeal relates to the application of S.41(1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (36 of 1947) to the facts of the case as appearing in the record. Admittedly, the employer organization (the Madras State Electricity Board) cannot dispense with the services of even a temporary employee, like the writ appellant though recruited as such, and on the basis of liability to termination of employment at any time, except within the terms of S. 41(1). That necessarily implies two contingencies which are very clear from the section itself. One is that such an employee, whose services are dispensed with is entitled to "at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice." The second is that his services ought to be dispensed with, only for a "reasonable cause."

Now, obviously, the question whether in a given case there was such "reasonable cause." or otherwise is a question of fact. It cannot be a question of law for, in that event the legislature would have proceeded further, and enumerated the categories of what would be "reasonable causes" in law, for dispensing with the services of an employee. In the pre