- (1.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. Hence, this Court is constrained to peruse the affidavit, counter affidavit, and all other relevant documents and pass the following order.
(2.) THE General Manager of the Co -operative Bank has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 24.11.2008 passed in T.N.S.E.No.4 of 2001 by the second respondent, namely the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The first respondent was employed under the petitioner/Bank from 24.2.1984 to 31.10.1999 as a Manager in Annur Branch. A show cause notice was issued on 8.12.1998, on charges of dereliction in duty and causing loss to a tune of Rs.5.30 Lakhs to the petitioner/bank. The first respondent submitted his explanation on 1.3.1999. Thereafter, the first respondent was placed under suspension with effect from 14.5.1999. The charges of manipulation of ledgers and misappropriation were also levelled against the first respondent. In the meanwhile, the first respondent was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.10.1999, pending enquiry and suspension. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the charges were found to be proved. A second show cause notice was issued to the first respondent on 1.2.2001. The first respondent submitted his explanation on 15.3.2001. The said explanation was not found satisfactory to the petitioner and, by order dated 30.6.2001, the first respondent was found guilty of the all the charges levelled against him and dismissed from service.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the petitioner, the first respondent preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 before the second respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 5.10.2002, dismissed the appeal holding that since the first respondent was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.10.1999, pending enquiry and suspension, there is no employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent.;