Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant was appointed as Store Clerk on 26-2-1977 by the first respondent. He was posted as Territory Supervisor, Jabalpur, on 1-4-1991. By communication dated 11-12-1997, the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 12-12-1997 and a cheque for a months salary in lieu of notice was enclosed with that letter. ( 2. ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 58 (2) of the M. P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act) before the Appellate Authority (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur) for setting aside the termination and for reinstatement with back wages and compensation. In the appeal, the appellant contended that his termination, without enquiry and without opportunity to show cause, was invalid. The employer resisted the appeal contending that it was entitled to terminate the services of the appellant without assigning any reason as provided under Section 58 (1) of the Act, if reasonable cause existed for such termination. It set out the grounds to show reasonable cause in its reply, and also led in evidence to establish reasonable cause. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 7-4-2001, allowed (he appeal and directed the employer to reinstate the appellant with full back wages. ( 3. ) THE employer challenged the said order of the Appellate Authority in W. P. No. 2386/2001. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24-6-2003 [2003 (3) M. P. H. T. 257], allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge held that sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act enables the employer to dispense with the services of the employee for a reasonable cause by giving a months notice or wages in lieu of such notice. He further held that reasonable cause for dispensing with the services of an employee can be overall unsatisfactory performance and that the requirement of reasonable cause is not equivalent to proof of any specific or positive misconduct enumerated in Rule 14 of the M. P. Shops and Establishment Rules, 1959. He also held that the documents produced and exhibited by the employer (warning letters, Annual Performance Appraisal Reports etc.) clearly demonstrated that the work and conduct of the appellant while discharging his duties were unsatisfactory and that there was reasonable cause for dispensing with the services of the appellant. He also held that the documents produced and exhibited by the employer (warning letters, Annual Performance Appraisal Reports etc.) clearly demonstrated that the work and conduct of the appellant while discharging his duties were unsatisfactory and that there was reasonable cause for dispensing with the services of the appellant. The learned Single Judge held that t he action of the employer was an act of weeding out worthless as the appellant had become a dead wood in terms of work and efficiency. The said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. ( 4. ) THE appellant contends that even though the letter dated 11-12-1997 purported to be a simple termination, it is really a camouflage for imposition of punishment for a misconduct. He contended that the following averments, in the written statement filed by the employer before the Appellate Authority and in the writ petition filed in this Court, showed that the termination was by way of punishment. The portions relied on by the appellant are extracted below :written Statement filed by the employer (respondent) before the Appellate Authority: "thus, since no alternative, the services of the applicant has been terminated and to avoid any stigma, the real reason for his termination or discontinuation from the services was not mentioned in the order concerned. Thus, it is apparent that the applicant was guilty of misconduct, improper functioning and disobedience of lawful orders and, therefore, his continuation in the respondent organisation was not in the interest of Organisation (vide Para 2 ). . . . . . . the reason for termination, amounting to stigma has no been mentioned in the interest of applicant as the same would have long ranging repercussion on the future prospects of the applicant. Otherwise the termination was due to aforesaid reasonable grounds. The answering respondent crave leaves of this Hon. Authority to place necessary material and evidence to substantiate the aforesaid reasons of termination of applicants services. {vide Para 6)" Writ Petition (filed by the employer) : "it was further submitted that the petitioner could have taken action for misconduct but with a view to avoid a stigma and (not to harm the) future employment opportunities of the respondent No. 1, misconduct was not specifically (mentioned) in the termination order. . . . . . {vide Para 6)" Writ Petition (filed by the employer) : "it was further submitted that the petitioner could have taken action for misconduct but with a view to avoid a stigma and (not to harm the) future employment opportunities of the respondent No. 1, misconduct was not specifically (mentioned) in the termination order. . . . . . The petitioner also submitted that they will place all the material evidence to establish the misconduct of the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority. " (vide Paras 5. 8 and 5. 9) ( 5. ) ON a careful perusal of the writ statement and the writ petition, in entirety, we find that the contention of the appellant is without any merit. 5. 1. The portions of the written statement relied on by the appellant (extracted above) is preceded by the following averments : "during his tenure as Depot Incharge, the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent and therefore, number of warning letters were issued to him. On 1-4-1991 the applicant was transferred from BPD Lucknow to Jabalpur as Territory Supervisor at Jabalpur. The applicant failed and neglected to take necessary interest in sales and was often found lack of salesmanship quality. The applicant was counselled periodically but the performance of the applicant did not improve. The respondent received number of complaints from the various dealers and his performance was so poor that number of dealers very specifically complained that the applicant should not be sent to them. The foregoing was due to applicants poor performance and his poor salesmanship and ability to communicate. The applicant on many occasions (was) found erratic in communicating the schemes to the trade. The applicant was advised to improve the performance but he failed to do so. Unfortunately, the applicant fell sick during 1996 and he availed of long medical leave of 147 days. The respondent Company paid medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. One lakh to the applicant. On joining, the applicant expressed his inability to undertake travel, which was the most essential part of his duty. Despite that, in order to accommodate him, the respondent finally allowed him to work in the office in the Customers Service Department. The applicant worked in the Customers Service Department for more than two months and his performance was extremely poor in the said department too. Despite that, in order to accommodate him, the respondent finally allowed him to work in the office in the Customers Service Department. The applicant worked in the Customers Service Department for more than two months and his performance was extremely poor in the said department too. On reviewing, it was found that the applicant had only covered 10% of the area of the job assigned to him and that too he did not perform with necessary skill causing complete moss up in the functioning causing tremendous hardships and inconvenience to the respondent Company. The applicant failed and neglected to release the orders despite having Demand Draft on hands and large number of order copies received were found missing. As a result of extremely negligence and careless performance by the applicant, number of dealers expressed their annoyance with the respondent Organization inflicting dis-reputation and bad name to the Company. Large number of customers categorically informed the respondent that they are not prepared to deal through Shri Parihar. The applicant despite repeated advice failed and neglected to improve his performance. " 5. 2. In the writ petition, the employer has reiterated the above facts. In particular, the following averments are relevant: "respondent No. 1 was working as Territory Supervisor with the petitioners. Because of poor quality of service and total inefficiency and various other misconducts, his services were terminated, vide order dated 11-12-1977. (vide Para 3) For reasons best known to the respondent No. 1, he has not been putting his heart and soul into the job and has been repeatedly misconducting himself in various ways. The respondent No. 1 was absenting continuously and leaving Head Quarter without permission and behaved in autocratic and indiscipline manner. (vide Para 5. 2) At the Jabalpur, he was not showing any interest in the sale and was found lacking (in) salesmanship. In spite of repeated counselling, he did not improve. But, the petitioners were receiving repeated complaints from various dealers against the performance of the respondent No. 1 at his attitude towards customers. They suggested that the respondent No. 1 should not be sent to them for the work of the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 has hardly completed 10% of the job assigned to him. Even the said job, he did not perform with necessary skill and caused complete loss to the company resulting in serious hardship, loss and inconvenience to the petitioners Company. The respondent No. 1 has hardly completed 10% of the job assigned to him. Even the said job, he did not perform with necessary skill and caused complete loss to the company resulting in serious hardship, loss and inconvenience to the petitioners Company. " (vide Para 5. 3) 5. 3. The above will clearly show that the termination was on account of overall inefficiency, irregular attendance, improper attitude towards customers and several other miscellaneous irregular and improper conducts, which were loosely termed as misconduct. The pleadings of the employer should be read in the context of the employer attempting to show reasonable cause for dispensing with the service of the employee as provided under Section 58 (1) of the Act. The said sub-section (1) of Section 58 is extracted below : " section 58. Notice of dismissal.- (1) No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee, who has been employed for a period of three months or more except for a reasonable clause, and without giving such employee at least one months notice or wages in lieu of such notice : Provided that such notice shall not be necessary if the services of such employees are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held by the employer for the purpose. " ( 6. ) TO get a correct perspective of dispensation with services of an employee on a reasonable cause under Section 58 (1) of the Act, we may, by way of illustration, refer to the distinction drawn between compulsory retirement as a penalty for misconduct and compulsory retirement on formation of an opinion that an employee has become dead-wood on evaluation of the performance as to continued utility. In the first, misconduct or inefficiency constitute the basis or foundation for imposition of punishment, whereas in the second, misconduct and inefficiency merely furnish the general background for reaching the conclusion as to the absence of potential for continued useful service. Therefore, whatever has been stated in the written statement and writ petition with reference to inefficiency and general misconduct should be seen in the perspective of reasonable cause for dispensing with the services of the appellant under Section 58 (1) of the Act. It should be remembered that the employer did not refer to any misconduct, inefficiency, or negligence in the letter of termination. It should be remembered that the employer did not refer to any misconduct, inefficiency, or negligence in the letter of termination. It did not cast any stigma, and effected a simple termination. But, when the appellant challenged the said termination by imputing an ulterior motive to the employer, it became unnecessary to the employer to assign reasons to show that dispensation of services was for a reasonable cause and not by way of penalty for misconduct. The appellant can not contend that the reasonable cause shown by the employer should be treated as evidence of imposition of penalty for misconduct. ( 7. ) THE term misconduct has been used by the employer in the pleading not to refer to any specific instance of transgression or act of omission/commission which required punishment, but in general to refer to improper functioning, which is not conducive to efficiency and good work. The reference to the manner of work and discharge of duties and use of words misconduct and disobedience of lawful orders etc. is to show reasonable cause for dispensation of service under Section 58 (1) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the termination was not by way of punishment for any misconduct without holding an enquiry. The termination was for reasonable cause by giving a months salary in lieu of notice as per Section 58 (1) of the Act. ( 8. ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.