( 1 ) THE challenge in this group of Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is the order of termination of each petitioners, passed by the respondent-Surat Municipal Corporation and also the decision of the Standing committee rejecting their representations.

( 2 ) THE first Special Civil Application being 7110/97 has been filed by Surat municipal Corporation Employees (Staff) Union challenging the order of termination of 65 employees who are said to be its members, 16 out of the said 65 employees have also challenged the individual order of termination by filing separate Special Civil application.

( 3 ) IN September, 1994, there was outbreak of epidemic in Surat City and the situation was so grave that the State of Gujarat having formed the opinion that stoppage or the cessation of the performance of any of the essential services will be prejudicial to the safety or health or the maintenance of services essential to the life of community in the city, declared that an emergency existed in that City as a consequence, thereof, no member of such essential services for a period of 90 days shall withdraw or absent himself from duties. A public announcement was also made in that regard by publishing in the newspapers. The employees were asked to resume their duties immediately. It was made clear that if they are on leave, the same stand cancelled. A clear warning was given that if they do not resume their duties, they will be removed from service. The situation was so grave that without the cooperation of the officers and the staff members, it was not possible to meet the challenge. Many Governmental and Non-Governmental organisations of Surat city and outside rushed to help the people on humanitarian grounds. The petitioners in this group of Special Civil Applications are employees of the Corporation who alleged to have absented themselves from duty, during that grave period. Their contention is that the order of termination is shocking and inhumane.

( 4 ) OUT of 13,000 employees of the Surat Municipal Corporation, services of about 70 employees were terminated as they acted in violation of the Notification dated 25. 9. 1994 by absenting themselves from duty. Thus, their services were terminated by order dated 29. 9. 1994 in terms of the Notification dated 25. 9. 1994. The said order of termination was challenged before this Court by the Surat Municipal Corporation (Staff) Union which was registered as Special Civil Application No. 12677/94. While considering the question of interim relief, the Court noticed that no disciplinary action preceded the orders of dismissal. The Court also noticed the fact that the provision of Sec. 62, prima facie do not warrant dismissal, in view of the fact that Sec. 62 has to be read with the provisions of sec. 396 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which provides for punishment for breach of Sees. 61 and 62 of the Act. Therefore, if an employee withdraws himself from duty, except in case of illness or accident disabling him from discharge of his duties or neglects or refuses to perform duties, he would be committing an offence, which on conviction would be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to one year or with fine or both as provided under Sec. 396 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the employees Union that the order of terminations were passed mechanically even without considering that many of such employees were on sanctioned leave, including maternity leave. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, by interim order dated 11. 7. 1996, directed the respondent authorities to consider the relevant aspect and take a decision. The relevant part of the order is extracted as follows: "it is therefore, directed by way of interim relief that the concerned authority of the respondents will consider this aspect of the matter and take into consideration all the particulars that may be placed befor