JUDGMENT

FAIZAN UDDIN, J.- Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act which is controlled and owned by the State Government and a subsidiary company of M.P. Laghu Udhyog Nigam Limited which is carrying on business activities of development of handicrafts and handloom products. At the relevant time one Shri K.P. Thakur was the Managing Director of the appellant-company who by an order dated 6-7-1989 Annexure-D appointed Respondents 1 to 3, namely, Devendra Kumar Jain, Dilip Goel and Promod Mishra as temporary Junior Managers and by two subsequent orders both dated 8-6-1989 (Annexure E/l and 2) appointed Respondents 4 and 5, namely, Mehboob Hussain and Liquat Mohd. Khilzi as temporary Junior Managers in the appellant Company. Soon after their appointment the appellant-Company noticed that the aforesaid appointments of Respondents 1 to 5 were made by the then Manging Director, Shri K.P Thakur in contravention of the Government order dated 1-4-1989 Annexure B without the approval of the State Government and therefore, another Managing Director successor of Shri K.P. Thakur by order dated 31-7-1989 terminated the services of Respondents 1 to 5. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order of termination in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3973/83 which was allowed by judgment dated 1-12-1993 whereby the order of termination of the respondents was quashed. It has been directed that the respondents will continue in service till their services are not validly terminated. It is this order which has been challenged in this appeal.

3. The High Court quashed the order of termination of service of respondents mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the High Court took the view that the respondents services were terminated without giving them any opportunity of hearing in consonance with the rules of natural justice and, therefore, the order of termination of service was contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and; secondly, Government approval was not necessary for the appointment as contended by the appellant and that in any case no material was placed to show that the appointment was contrary to the Government instructions. In our considered opinion the High Court fell in serious error in taking the aforesaid view and, therefore, the order of the High Court could not be sustained in law.

4. Admittedly the appointment of the respondent was made purely on temporary basis which is evident from the order of their appointment. The first order dated 6-7-1989 Annexure D by which Respondents 1 to 3 were appointed reads as follows:

"Bhopal, 6-7-1989

ORDER

The following persons are appointed to the post of Junior Manager in the pay scale of 1290-30-1560-40-2040 from the date of taking over, till further orders temporarily and are posted to the Headquarters:

(1) Shri D.K. Jain

(2) Shri Pramod Mishra

(3) Shri Dilip Kumar Goyal

2. Employee has to submit Medical Fitness Certificate from Civil Surgeon of the District.

3. Deamess Allowance and other facilities according to the rules of the Corporation shall be payable.

Above appointments are purely temporary and are liable to termination without notice or assigning any reason.

By order of Managing Director

General Manager

Hastashilp Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bhopal"

6-7-1989

The subsequent two orders both dated 8-6-1989 with regard to the appointment of Respondents 4 and 5 are identical one of which is reproduced herein below:

"6-7-1989

ORDER Shri Mohammad Hussain is appointed to the post of Junior Manager in the pay scale of 1290-30-1560-40-2040 from the date of taking over, temporarily and posted at Headquarters.

Employee has to obtain Medical Fitness Certificate from Civil Surgeon and submit to office.

Dearness Allowance and other facilities according to the rules of the Corporation shall be payable.

Above appointment is purely temporary and is liable to termination at any time without notice or assigning a reason