The petitioner was an employee under the respondents. He was working as a Job Recorder by 23-08-1994. The petitioner initially joined the service in the respondents’ organization on 06-06-1972 as Grade-IV Fitter.

2. When his services were terminated by invoking clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the lien through orders dated 30-09-1999, the petitioner came up with this petition claiming that the order of the employer that the petitioner was deemed to have left the services of the respondent was incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

3. The petitioner, as already pointed out was working as Job Recorder by 23-08-1994. The petitioner sought for lien for a period of four years to start his own industrial venture. Through office order dated 23-08-1994, the petitioner was granted lien for a period of four years.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26-08-1998, the petitioner sought for further lien for a period of three years and that the lien however was extended only for one year from 26-08-1998 to 25-08-1999. Sri P. Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the respondents however pointed out that soon after the expiration of the lien period on 25-08-1998, the petitioner was not granted extension of lien as claimed by the petitioner. As the lien of four years period was coming to an end on 25-08-1999, the respondents advised the petitioner to report to duty through letter dated 10-09-1998. However, the petitioner did not join duty on 25-08-1998 but submitted a letter on 04-09-1998 seeking extension of lien for a further period of three years.

5. In the letter dated 10-08-1998, the first respondent advised the petitioner to report to duty by 25-08-1998 informing the petitioner that there was no possibility of extending lien for further period. While the petitioner was asked to join duty by 25-08-1998, the petitioner would appear to have informed the respondents on 14-09-1998 that the petitioner fell ill and that he was advised bed rest for a period of one month till 13-10-1998.

6. On 06-10-1998, the first respondent again addressed a letter to the petitioner asking the petitioner to join duty by 14-10-1998. On 13-10-1998, the petitioner sought for extension of leave for one more month from 14-10-1998 till 13-11-1998 on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice. However, on 26-10-1998, the petitioner addressed another letter seeking for extension of lien for a further period of two years in continuance of the lien initially granted with effect from 26-08-1994. The first respondent, in response to the request of the petitioner extended the lien for a further period of one year with effect from 25-08-1998 on which date the first lien period stood expired. The petitioner consequently was to report to duty by 25-08-1999.

7. The petitioner did not report for duty after the expiration of the lien period, albeit it was made clear to the petitioner that further extension of lien would not be granted. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents waited for more than a month after the expiration of the lien period and on 30-09-1999, passed the impugned orders and informed the petitioner that the petitioner was deemed to have left the services of the first respondent with effect from 26-08-1999. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the termination order is in conformity with clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the office order dated 23-08-1994 under which lien was granted in favour of the petitioner.

8. It may be recalled that the initial office order granting lien was passed on 23-08-1994. Clause 6 of the office order reads :

“In case the employee does not join back to duty or resign on expiry of lien period, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Company on his volition”.

9. According to clause 6, if the employee does not report to duty on the expiration of the lien period, it would be deemed that the employee had left the servic