JUDGMENT:- 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in T.N.S.E.No.48/2001, quash the order dated 27.06.2008 as unsustainable under law, as well as on merits of the matter. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- (a) The petitioner Society is a Co-operative institution constituted under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The petitioner Society is having registered By-laws with regard to the Constitution, membership, etc., and Special By-laws with regard to service condition of its employees. The petitioner Society has to function, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, By-laws, Special By-laws and various circulars and instructions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. (b) The petitioner can appoint its employees as per the By-laws, Provisions of Act and Rules and instructions of Registrar of Co-operative Society. The petitioner can appoint a person only after prior permission from Registrar of Co-operative Societies and within the cadre strength of the petitioner, persons sponsored by employment exchange having requisite qualification and following communal rotation. (c) The then Board of Directors without following any of the Rules and Regulations and contrary to the instructions of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, appointed the second respondent for collection of over dues for the post of "Collection Clerk". There is no approval for the post of Collection Clerk for collection of over dues. The Board of Directors appointed the second respondent with effect from 05.04.1999, on daily rate of Rs.40/- by passing resolution to that effect. The second respondent was not sponsored by employment exchange. (d) On inspection under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, it was found that appointments of second respondent and another person were unauthorized, against the norms and procedures. Therefore, actions was initiated against the Board of Directors under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. (e) The Board by Resolution dated 15.12.1999, terminated the service of the second respondent and reported to Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. (f) Once again the second respondent gave an application dated 02.04.2000 to the Board of Directors seeking appointment in petitioner Society. The Board of Directors by Resolution dated 15.04.2000, appointed the second respondent as Clerk to assist the Audit and to do collection works on consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. (f) Once again the second respondent gave an application dated 02.04.2000 to the Board of Directors seeking appointment in petitioner Society. The Board of Directors by Resolution dated 15.04.2000, appointed the second respondent as Clerk to assist the Audit and to do collection works on consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. When the Board of Directors were superseded and Special Officer appointed the second respondent did not turn up for work from 18.09.2000. 3. According to the second respondent, he was appointed as Collection Clerk with effect from 05.04.1999 by proper resolution passed by the Board of Directors. He worked continuously from 18.09.2000. The Special Officer took charge after supersession of Board of Directors and orally terminated his service. After his various request the Special Officer, promised to consider his request, but, subsequently informed the second respondent that oral order of termination is final and cannot be revoked. Therefore, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. According to the second respondent, he worked continuously for more than six months and his services were terminated without notice violating the provisions of Section 41 of the Act. 4. The petitioner Society has filed its objection stating that the second respondent was not an employee as defined under Section 2(12) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, he did not work continuously for six months and hence, Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act cannot be invoked by the second respondent. 5. The petitioner Society also filed a petition under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, before the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai contending that second respondent is not an employee as defined under the Act. The Commissioner of Labour dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. The first respondent by order dated 16.08.2004 allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and set aside the order of termination. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3551 of 2004. This Court by order dated 24.07.2007 set aside the order of first respondent dated 16.08.2004 and remanded the matter to the first respondent to decide the issue afresh. The first respondent considering the materials, again allowed the appeal by order dated 27.06.2008 setting aside the order of termination. 7. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3551 of 2004. This Court by order dated 24.07.2007 set aside the order of first respondent dated 16.08.2004 and remanded the matter to the first respondent to decide the issue afresh. The first respondent considering the materials, again allowed the appeal by order dated 27.06.2008 setting aside the order of termination. 7. Challenging the said order the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner Society. . 8. Though the writ petition is of the year 2009, the second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and vehemently contended that the first respondent failed to properly consider and appreciate the materials produced by the petitioner marked as Exs.R7 to R10. He further contended that originally the second respondent was appointed on 05.04.1999 and was terminated on 15.12.1999. The second respondent was appointed as Clerk on 15.04.2000 based on the application of the second respondent dated 02.04.2000. Even according to the second respondent his service were orally terminated with effect from 18.09.2000. This would show that the second respondent did not work continuously for six months from 15.04.2000, which was fresh appointment as Clerk. The second respondent has not produced any materials to show that he worked during the period from 15.12.1999 to 15.04.2000. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent worked continuously from 15.12.1999 to 18.09.2000, when his service were orally terminated. The petitioner has not produced any order of termination terminating the service of the second respondent with effect from 15.12.1999. The second respondent worked for more than 240 days in 12 months without any order of termination. The petitioner was prevented from attending the work. The impugned order of the first respondent is valid and legal. The first respondent has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective, and there is no reason to interfere with the said order and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 12. I have carefully considered all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. 13. The first respondent has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective, and there is no reason to interfere with the said order and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 12. I have carefully considered all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. 13. The counsel for the petitioner contended that originally the second respondent was appointed on 05.04.1999 and was terminated on 15.12.1999, subsequently, he was appointed as Clerk on 15.04.2000, considering the application of the second respondent dated 02.04.2000. According to the petitioner, the second respondent stopped attending work from 18.09.2000. The appointment of the second respondent is irregular beyond cadre strength for non existing post and therefore, the second cannot be continued in service. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent worked continuously from 05.04.1999 to 18.09.2000, when the Special Officer orally terminated the service of the second respondent. 14. The second respondent was appointed on 05.04.1999 and again appointed on 15.04.2000 based on the application of the second respondent dated 02.04.2000. If really the second respondent was not terminated by the resolution dated 15.12.1999, there is no necessity for the second respondent to apply for appointment on 02.04.2000 and the petitioner to appoint him with effect from 15.04.2000. The first respondent has not considered Exs.R8 to 10 properly. The first respondent erred that the petitioner did not produce any termination order based on the resolution dated 15.12.1999. 15. In view of the Exs.R8 to R10, I hold that the second respondent was terminated based on Resolution dated 15.12.1999 and was given fresh appointment as Clerk with effect from 15.04.2000. The second respondent contended that his service were orally terminated with effect from 18.09.2000. In view of this admission, the second respondent did not work continuously for six months from 15.04.2000 and he is not entitled to invoke provisions under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The first respondent erred in holding that the second respondent worked continuously from 15.12.1999 to 18.09.2000. As the second respondent did not work continuously for six months, the impugned order of first respondent is liable to be set aside. 16. The first respondent erred in holding that the second respondent worked continuously from 15.12.1999 to 18.09.2000. As the second respondent did not work continuously for six months, the impugned order of first respondent is liable to be set aside. 16. Further, the second respondent was appointed contrary to Rules and Regulations, instructions of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, beyond cadre strength and was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Whether the services of such person can be regularised was considered by this Court and Apex Court in the following Judgments:- (i) 2003 (i) LLJ 284 Madras – Division Bench - (L. Justine and another Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Two others) (ii) (2005) 1 MLJ6(SC) (A. Uma Rani Vs. Registrar, Co-operatives Societies and others) (iii) 2007(6) MLJ 455 – Full Bench – (R. Rathakrishnan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies) 17. In those judgments, it has been held that irregular appointments cannot be regularised and these judgments were followed by learned Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 186 (The Special Officer, Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another). The Labour Court setaside the order of termination by Co-operative Society. The learned Judge set aside the said Award of Labour Court and restored the order of termination. 18. In the light of the Judgments referred to above and in view of the fact that the second respondent did not work for six months continuously, his services cannot be regularized. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.