A clause in an employment contract that allows the employer to terminate the services of a permanent employee without any reason or opportunity of hearing is void as being opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the Memo dated 1st August, 1986 issued by the Custodian and Chief Executive Officer, respondent No. 4, terminating his services. The case of the petitioner is that in 1972 he was appointed as Production Manager (Research and Development) in Eastern Distilleries (P) Ltd. , now known as Eastern Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. , respondent No. 3. Soon he was confirmed to the past of Bio-Chemist (Research and Development) with the condition that his services will be subject to termination of one month's notice in writing on either side or one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Company was engaged in the manufacture and production of Industrial Alcohol Spirit and was taken over by the Central Government under Section 18a of the Industries. (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 is an agency or instrumentality of the Government and is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution as the management and control of the said respondent is completely vested in the State Government and is fully financed by the Government. Immediately on receiving the impugned memo the petitioner protested in writing for the withdrawal or cancellation of the said impugned notice or termination of service but to no effect. It is also the case of the petitioner that he being n confirmed employee his services cannot be terminated except on the ground of misconduct and that the agreement on the basis of which his services have been terminated is unfair and unreasonable as against public policy.

( 2 ) THE respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by an Affidavit-in-Opposition denied the contention of the petitioner. In the Affidavit serious allegations have been made about the activities of the petitioner who was found to be non-co-operative and working against the interest of the Undertaking and also of some subversive activities. This caused resentment among the workers and they submitted representations to the authorities. It is further stated in the Affidavit that the petitioner was found to be disobedient to his superior officers and was carrying on benami business detriment to the interest of the Undertaking. There is also allegation against him of sabotage. It is further stated in the Affidavit that the Advisory Board of the respondent No. 3 considered the case of the petitioner on 1st August, 1986 and decided to terminate his services with effect from that very date in terms of the Letter of Appointment. In the Affidavit-in-Reply all the allegations made in the

Affidavit-in-Opposition were denied by the petitioner and termed as conspiracy against him.

( 3 ) MR. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that sheer injustice has been done to the petitioner by terminating his services and offering him only one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice which is against public policy and recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court. If the petitioner in any way be guilty of any act of insubordination or misconduct then he ought to have been proceeded with in accordance with law and after proper enquiry action would have been taken against him, but this was not done and he was summarily dismissed without giving any opportunity of hearing and without disclosing the charges against him which are disclosed only in the Affidavit-in-Opposition in this Hon'ble Court and those charges are very much denied and rebutted by the petitioner.

( 4 ) TO me it appears from the records that the Director In-charge of the respondent No. 3 by his Memo dated 1st November, 1972 offered the petitioner the job of the Production Manager (Research and Development) an some terms and conditions one of which was Clause 3 which is quoted as under:"you will be on probation for 6/12 months during which period, if your performance and attainment do not come up to the expectation on the Management, about which the Management will be the sole judge to determi