The burden of proof lies on the employer to demonstrate that the employee had not worked for the specified number of days, and the duty of the management to produce relevant records was emphasized. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the need for notice, enquiry, and order before termination.

Subramonium Prasad, J.

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 1/6/2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.17368 of 2016.

2. Appellant is Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Chennai. Second respondent joined the services of the appellant Bank, as Peon. Respondent was not permitted to work from 1/4/2009. No notice was given to him prior to termination of service. No charges were framed against him and no compensation was given to him.

3. Second respondent, approached the Appellate Authority, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, challenging his removal from service, by filing an appeal, under Section 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. Appellant Bank refuted all the contentions. According to the Bank, second respondent herein was never appointed, on a substantive basis. He was temporarily engaged to perform the work, as and when any staff went on leave. It was contended that he had not worked, beyond the period stipulated, under Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is therefore, stated that there was no question of termination of service. Appellate Authority, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, came to the following conclusions:-

(a). The appellant had been employed, on temporary basis, in the respondent Bank, in the year 1999 to 2009.

(b). No order of removal from service was issued.

(c). On consideration of Exs.P.1 and P.2, it is confirmed that the appellant has requested, for regularisation of service every now and then and the same was recommended by the Branch Manager to the Head Office.

(d). The respondent has not filed any acceptable documents to show that the said person has only worked less than 100 days. The statement of M.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that "it is correct to state that in all the vouchers the name of the petitioner was not written and signature not obtained and that the disbursement of wages was not shown in Ex.M.2 Ledger Account". The statement of MW 2 in his cross-examination that "the year wise vouchers from 1999 to 2009 under which the petitioner received wages for his engagement has been filed as Ex.M.5", will show that complete documents have not been filed by the bank to prove that the employee has not worked for the requisite number of days.

(e). The workman has served in the respondent Bank for 10 years. The respondent Management without cautioning him that there is no possibility at all to regularise his service, that his engagement is absolutely temporary, recommended the representations given by him and informed that at an appropriate time the same will be considered.

(f). It has been provided in Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, the person who has worked for 480 days in 24 months should be regularised in service. It has not been proved by the respondent that this workman has not worked for even 240 days and on the other hand, it has been admitted by the respondent that the worked from 1999 to 2009. Further, the removal from service of the person who have worked for 10 years without notice, enquiry or order is against the principles of natural justice.

4. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, appellant has filed Writ Petition No.17368 of 2016. Learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia held as follows:-

"7. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that based on the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the first respondent has rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the second respondent was engaged by the Petitioner Bank right from 1999 till 2009. It is even admitted by the witnesses produced by the petitioner Bank that the second respondent was engaged for ten years. However, he was not continuously employed and only when contingency arises, his services were utilised. The documents with regard to the nature of work, the number of days the second respondent worked should be available with the petitioner Bank