An employer cannot pass an innocent-looking 'termination simpliciter' to avoid the requirements of a fair domestic inquiry for misconduct. Appellate authorities under the Shops and Establishments Act have wide powers to examine the true substance of the termination and order reinstatement if the action lacks reasonable cause.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The Petitioner is a software company a a subsidiary of Cognizant Technology Solutions Inc., based in New Jersey, United ates of America. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the 1 Respoent, the Appellate Authority uer the Tamil Nadu Shops a Eablishments Act, 1947, in proceedings bearing TSE-1/1 of 2016.

3.The Appellate Authority (1 Respoent), by her well-considered order dated 18.10.2019, finally passed the following order:—

“Issue No.6 : To what remedy the appellant is entitled to.

153. In fine, in view of extensive discussions on various issues, the Authority holds that the dispensing with the services of the appellant by the respoent-management is that i) the termination of services of the appellant was not for reasonable cause, ii) that the respoent has not satisfied the Appellate Authority as to the subjective satisfaction based on which the appellant was terminated from service based on documents a evidence, iii) that the termination of service of the appellant is not “termination simpliciter” but one of “punitive” in nature, iv) since the termination of service ca igma, the respoent-management, before dispensing with the services of the appellant has not coucted any domeic enquiry as maated uer Section 41 of Tamil Nadu Shops & Eablishments act, 1947 a v) that the evidences let in by the respoent during the course of enquiry in the appeal before the Appellant Authority was held not supported the contention of the respoent – management.

154. Therefore, the Authority directs that the order dt. 21.12.2015 terminating the services of Thiru.Sivakumar Krishnamurthy, the appellant herein, is set aside a the appellant be reinated into service with continuity of service, full back wages a all consequent a atteant benefits as prayed for by the appellant.”

4.The sole queion that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18.10.2019 is fair, proper, a legally suainable, or whether it as vitiated by any error, including the allegation of mala fides attributed to the officer concerned. Although the issue lies within a narrow compass, it is unfortunate that both parties have been embroiled in protracted litigation, approaching this Court on multiple occasions over the same subject matter. For what is essentially a raightforward dispute, the course of action adopted by the parties has resulted in uue consumption of judicial time a avoidable expeiture of public resources.

5.It becomes necessary to set out the prior litigation initiated by the parties, not only again each other but also involving the atutory Appellate Authority, who was unfortunately drawn into the public domain, with her couct being subjected to scrutiny in the course of the proceedings. The actions of both parties, in this regard, warrant rong disapproval. Merely because the Petitioner is a multinational software company a the 2 Respoent a software professional, neither is entitled to initute multiple rous of litigation over a singular issue, namely, the legality a juification of the 2 Respoent’s termination.

6.The 2 Respoent, who was