THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3371 of 1998 Dated:10.04.2007 Between M.Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner and 1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Guntur and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3371 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the order dated 4.12.1997 passed by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.4218/95-8 and the order dated 29.1.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Section 47 of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act (for short ‘the Act’) and also Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no necessity to go into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the 2nd respondent-Society with effect from 1.5.1996 and in pursuance of the same, a resolution was passed by the Society on 10.5.1996. However, it appears that the 1st respondent advised the 2nd respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner since the petitioner was appointed during the ban period and in a leave vacancy. It appears that the 1st respondent also threatened the 2nd respondent that if he does not terminate the services of the petitioner, he would invoke his powers under Section 21-AA (1) C of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 29.1.1998 terminating the services of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the same is violative of Section 47 of the Act and also Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy, especially during the ban period and without proper approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The society has realized the mistake committed in appointing him. When it realized that the petitioner was appointed in ban period, the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Guntur, issued notice dated 4.12.1997 calling upon explanation from the society regarding the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Committee passed a resolution on 29.1.1998 resolving to terminate the services of petitioner from his temporary post and to that effect the impugned order dated 29.1.1998 was issued to the petitioner with one month advance salary, in lieu of one month notice, terminating him from service. Therefore, the same is neither arbitrary nor illegal. The petitioner was paid one month salary in lieu of notice. Therefore, there is no violation of the mandatory provisions either under Section 27 of the Act or under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as contended by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondents without paying compensation to the petitioner as required under Section 47 (1) of the Act, which is mandatory on the part of the Society, without which the termination order becomes illegal. Payment of one month salary in lieu of notice as well as other benefits such as payment of 15 days salary for each completed year of service must accompany the termination order. In this case, one month salary was paid, but compensation as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act was not paid. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Section 47 (1) of the Act must be read along with Section 47 (3) of the Act. Section 47 (3) of the Act contemplates the very contingencies under which an employee is entitled for 15 days salary as compensation for each completed year of service. In case of termination, there is no necessity of paying any compensation of 15 days salary for each completed year of service. Therefore, the respondents have not violated the provisions of Section 47 (3) of the Act. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Section 47 (1) of the Act reads as under: No employer shall, without a reasonable cause, terminate the service of an employee who has been in his employment continuously for a period of not less than six months without giving such employee at least one month’s notice in writing or wages in lieu thereof and in respect of an employee who has been in his employment continuously for the period of not less than one year, a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment: Provided that every termination shall be made by the employer in writing and a copy of such termination order shall be furnished to the Inspector having jurisdiction over the area within three days of such termination. Section 47(1) of the Act is a mandatory provision to be followed in case of termination of services of an employee by way of issuing one month’s notice or one month salary in lieu of notice as well as compensation of 15 days salary for each completed year of service. The contingencies contemplated under Section 47 (3) of the Act are on a different footing i.e., whenever an employee ceases from the service on voluntary cessation of his work after completion of 60 years of age or on his resignation or on physical or mental infirmity duly certified by a Registered Medical Practitioner or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease, he is entitled for 15 days wages towards compensation for each completed year of continuous service. That means, an employee who ceased to be in employment as per Section 47 (3) of the Act, is entitled for 15 days compensation for each completed year of service. Section 47 (1) of the Act is an independent section which deals with termination of service of an employee and the necessary procedure to be followed by an employer i.e., one month’s notice in writing or wages in lieu thereof and in respect of an employee who has been in his employment continuously for the period of not less than one year, a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment. In this case, admittedly, though one month’s salary in lieu of notice was paid, service compensation was not paid. Section 47 (1) of the Act mandates that the wages in lieu of notice as well as the service compensation be paid together, in case of termination of an employee who was continuously employed for not less than one year. The same has not been followed in the present case. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for such service compensation equivalent to 15 days wages for each completed year of service and therefore, even if it is not paid along with the termination, the termination order does not become invalid. The present case falls within the contingencies contemplated under Section 47 (1) of the Act, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation for termination of his service i.e., 15 days wages for each completed year of service cannot be countenanced. In view of the above, the impugned order is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 47 (1) of the Act and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In the result, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service with all other attendant benefits. _________ 10-04-2007 rkk