( 1 ) IN both these matters identical facts and issues have been raised and as such the same are being decided by this common order. Notice has been issued to the respondents in these matters and reply to the Special Civil applications has also been filed, but none is present to make oral submissions on behalf of the respondent. The respondent is Talod Nagar Palika, but it is unfortunate that it is unrepresented before this Court though it has engaged Advocate and paid fees.

( 2 ) ). The facts of the case are taken from Special Civil Application No. 7920 of 1997. Petitioner was engaged as peon on daily wages by the respondent on 1-7-1992. The petitioner filed application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Labour Court at Himatnagar for the claim of permanency, continuity of service and regular pay-scale of the post. The respondent entered into compromise with the petitioners and in terms of the compromise the Labour Court passed order on 29th November, 1996 under which the respondent was ordered to give to the petitioners all benefits of service from 1-1-1997 as permanent employees. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent did not implement the order of the Labour Court, Himatnagar. It is further stated that the respondent informed the petitioners that the order passed by the Labour Court, Himatnagar be treated as cancelled as the respondent had agreed to the award by mistake. The respondent filed application before the Labour Court, Himatnagar for recalling of its order dated 29th november, 1996, but that application came to be dismissed on 30th April, 1997. Under the order dated 15th September, 1997 the services of the petitioners were terminated. Hence, these Special Civil Applications before this Court.

( 3 ) FIRST prayer has been made by the petitioners for direction to the respondent to treat the petitioners as continued in service as permanent employees in accordance with the order passed by the Labour Court. The second prayer has been made by way of interim relief that pending final hearing and disposal of these petitions the respondents be directed to maintain status quo and allow the petitioner to resume his duties. In Special Civil Application No. 7922 of 1997 prayer has been made to declare the order dated 15th September, 1997 under which the services of the petitioner were terminated to be as non-est. Though services of both the petitioners were terminated, in one case prayer has not been made for setting aside the order of termination but in the other case that prayer has been made.

( 4 ) I may first deal with Special Civil Application No. 7920 of 1997. In Special civil Application No. 7920 of 1997 admittedly services of the petitioner were terminated under order dated 15th September, 1997 and he was not allowed to join his duty on 16th September, 1997. In para 8 of the Special Civil Application the petitioner admitted this fact that respondent had sent order of termination of his services by registered post at his home address. He further stated that he is not in possession of that order as he got it refused by his family members. So the petitioner in this case got this letter, but refused to receive through his own family members, and as such the plea that he has not received that letter cannot be accepted.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being permanent employees by law of the respondents, their services could not have been terminated summarily. The action of the respondents to terminate the services the petitioners is in violation of Arts. 311, 40 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has next been contended that the action of the respondents is also mala fide and is afflicted by mala fide motives, and in case this action of the respondent is allowed to stand, it will deprive the petitioners of their right of livelihood and bring them nearer to starvation.

( 6 ) FROM the contentions raised orally as well as