Judgment :- The petitioner-Company have challenged the order of the first respondent/Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), Madras. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. Concededly, the second respondent was working as Manager (Quality Assurance) during the relevant time in the petitioner-Company. The nature of work performed by the second respondent was to manage and monitor 10 to 15 Software Programmers and be responsible to top management for their productivity. .4. While the matter stood thus, the services of the second respondent was terminated by issuance of e mail under Ex.A4 stating that his services were terminated from 18. 2003. Aggrieved over the same, he filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the first respondent, wherein sufficient opportunity was given to both sides to let in oral and documentary evidence. The first respondent came to the conclusion that the order of termination was illegal and set aside the said order. Aggrieved over the said order, the Management has brought forth this writ petition before this Court. 5. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the work load of the petitioner-Company, due to various reasons, came down. As such, there was no sufficient projects to provide work to all the employees. Under the circumstances, a meeting was convened on 4th June, 2003 and all the employees including the second respondent participated. The second respondent has also given a letter dated 4th July, 2003, which could be evidenced as Ex.R4, stating that he would submit his resignation on 38. 2003 and the letter would also clearly read that the Organization was going for retrenchment and thus, in appraisement of the circumstances, he has given such an undertaking. 6. Since the activities of the petitioners Company have come down drastically, the petitioners Company gave termination order to the second respondent on 20.8.2003 with effect from 18. 2003, which cannot be said to be illegal or in contravention of any provisions of the Act. Even as per the Act, it requires only one months notice in the case of retrenchment. In fact, the petitioner has given two months notice to the second respondent. 7. 2003, which cannot be said to be illegal or in contravention of any provisions of the Act. Even as per the Act, it requires only one months notice in the case of retrenchment. In fact, the petitioner has given two months notice to the second respondent. 7. There was a compelling necessity to terminate the services of the second respondent and thus, it could be termed as reasonable cause. But the first respondent has not considered the that that e mail sent on 6th May, 2003 as notice of termination. Actually, a meeting was held on 4th June, 2003 and the second respondent himself understood the circumstances and gave a letter of undertaking that he would give his resignation, but not done so. In the instant case, since there is a reasonable cause, the order of termination should have been upheld by the first respondent, but not done so and hence the order passed by the first respondent has got to be set aside. 8. This Court heard Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on the above contentions. .9. After considering the submissions made by either side and looking into the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the first respondent does not require any interference in the hands of the Court. It is not in controversy that the second respondent was working in the petitioners Company from 2001 as Manager (Quality Assurance) . His services were terminated on 20th August, 2003 giving effect from 13th August, 2003. 10. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner before the Authority below viz. the work load has gone down and there was not much work for the Manager and hence the second respondents services might not be required and also he was given another job in the sisters concern and he was also given sufficient time to find out alternative job, but the second respondent did not do so and the Management was forced to terminate the services of the second respondent under the compelling circumstances and thus, there was a reasonable cause to terminate the second respondent. 11. The question that arises for consideration would be whether the termination of the second respondent from service is in accordance with Section 41 of the Act or not. 11. The question that arises for consideration would be whether the termination of the second respondent from service is in accordance with Section 41 of the Act or not. Needless to say that as per the said Act, an employer can dispense with the services of a person employed for a reasonable cause with one months notice or on the ground of mis-conduct proved in an enquiry held for that purpose. It is not the case of the Management that there was any mis-conduct or charge levelled or enquiry conducted against the second respondent. 12. The question arises for consideration is whether there was any reasonable cause for terminating the services of the second respondent. Admittedly, a notice was issued by way of e mail on 6th May, 2003. The Authorities below pointed out that it does not speak about the reason for termination. Apart from that, reliance was placed on Ex.R4 letter, stating that the second respondent himself has given an undertaking to put forth his resignation on 38. 2003. It is pertinent to point out that even before the date viz. 38. 2003, the termination order was served upon the second respondent on 20.8.2003 by giving effect to on 18. 2003. No explanation was tendered as to how the said termination order was served upon the second respondent even before the date mentioned in Ex.R4 letter. 13. Ex.R4 letter reads as follows:- "Now, the organization is going for retrenchment and hence you are asking us to submit our resignation. In this connection, we hereby inform you that we will submit our resignation on 31/08/2003." Thus, the aforesaid letter, which was given on 4th July, 2003, would also read that the Management was asking the employees including the second respondent to submit their resignation and further it is pertinent to point out that the resignation was to be given on 38. 2003. For the reasons best known to the Management, the termination order was served on the second respondent on 20.8.2003 giving effect to on 18. 2003. All would go to show that it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, since there is no reasonable cause. 14. For the foregoing reasons, nothing is noticed to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent, declaring that the termination order of the second respondent is bad and illegal. 2003. All would go to show that it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, since there is no reasonable cause. 14. For the foregoing reasons, nothing is noticed to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent, declaring that the termination order of the second respondent is bad and illegal. Hence the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. 15. It is brought to our notice that at the time of granting interim stay, entire amount was directed to be deposited and the same was accordingly done. Out of the said sum, 50% has already been withdrawn by the second respondent. There is no impediment for this Court to allow the second respondent to withdraw the remaining amount. No costs.