JUDGMENT :

T.RAJA, J.

1. The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Silk Producers Federation Limited, Kancheepuram, has filed this Writ Appeal, questioning the order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32118/2007 dated 15.12.2011 wherein it has been held that the appeal filed against the retrenchment order passed against the 2nd respondent herein, namely, T.Veliappan, under Section 41 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is proper and valid.

2. Mr.B.Hari Babu, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that when the 2nd respondent Mr.T.Veliappan being a workman with the appellant joined the service on 08.11.1993 on daily wages basis and his services were retrenched by letter dated 19.09.2003, aggrieved thereby, he has wrongly preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages), The Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The 1st respondent also, after examining the claims made by the 2nd respondent and also the objections raised by the appellant along with marking of three documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 on behalf of the 2nd respondent and examining one witness on the side of the appellant as R.W.1 along with marking of 17 documents as Ex.R1 to 17, came to a conclusion that the 2nd respondent can invoke the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Act even without resorting to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that approach adopted by the 2nd respondent was unknown to law, therefore, this was overlooked by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that when the appeal was not even maintainable and not covered under the provisions of the Act, the 1st respondent has committed illegality in passing the order under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

3. Arguing further, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the 2nd respondent was only a daily wage worker, therefore, he was retrenched for the reasons mentioned therein. When the retrenchment order passed against the 2nd respondent was proper and valid, more particularly, after following the procedure laid down in Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy that would be resorted by the 2nd respondent is only under the Industrial Disputes Act, but not filing appeal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Writ Appeal.

4. Per contra, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent supporting the impugned order pleaded that the issue raised both before the 1st respondent and subsequently before the learned Single Judge has already been adjudicated and decided not only by a Division Bench of Our High Court but also Full Bench in the case in The Management of Safire Theatre, Madras, vs. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras and Others reported in (1978) AIR (Madras) 14. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent again referring to paragraph 8 of the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Ms.T.N.Chandra vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited and another reported in (1992) 1 CLR 951 : (1992) 1 LLJ 739 : (1992) 1 LLN 868, pleaded that the Division Bench, while considering a similar and identical issue taking reliance from the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Limited held that termination in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act would be ab initio void and the workman would be entitled to a declaration that he continues to be in service with all consequential benefits.

5. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent also referred to yet another decision of the Apex Court in Krishna District Cooperative Mar