( 1 ) SINCE these petitions involve identical questions of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) SHORT facts leading to the present petitions are that the petitioner No. 1, Gujarat Vidyapith had employed the respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions in the Press run by the petitioner No. 1. It is the case of the petitioners that the Gujarat Vidyapith is declared as deemed University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. It is not in dispute that the Press run by the petitioners called Prakashan Mandir was closed down permanently and on account of this closure, the respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions had to be terminated from service. The petitioners, therefore, by orders dated 26th October, 1997, terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions. The said respondents employees challenged the action of the petitioners before this High Court by filing Special Civil Applications which later on came to be transferred to the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal and were numbered as Application Nos. 6/99 and 7/99 respectively.

( 3 ) THE Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal by its common judgment and order dated 29th December, 1999 was pleased to allow the applications of the employees concerned and the orders of termination of the employees were quashed and set aside being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 14 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 which is for the sake of brevity referred to as the "said Act" at some places in this judgment.

( 4 ) WHILE disposing of the said applications, the learned Tribunal negatived the contentions of the petitioners herein that the petitioner No. 1 being a deemed university is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal. On the merits of the matter, while considering the orders of termination passed by the petitioners, the Tribunal found that before terminating the services of the employees concerned, no notice was issued by the petitioners nor any explanation sought for from them. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal found that the action of the petitioners was in violation of the provisions of section 14 of the said Act.

( 5 ) THOUGH detailed averments have been made in the petitions by the petitioners to canvass the contention that the petitioner No. 1 being a deemed University, the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the employees, the learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that this question has been concluded by the decision dated 28th June 1999 rendered by the learned single Judge of this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 12987 of 1994 in the case of Budhabhai Naranbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Vidyapith. In that view of the matter, the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal need not be deliberated upon any further.

( 6 ) THE main question, therefore that requires consideration in these petitions is whether the view of the Tribunal that the termination of the employees concerned was in violation of the provisions of section 14 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 is correct or not. To put it differently, the question is whether the termination orders of the employees offend the provisions of section 14 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act or not.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the reason for terminating the services of the employees was closing down of the Press run by the petitioners and that therefore the services of the concerned employees were no longer required. He submits that it was a termination simpliciter and the petitioner had offered compensation to the employees as required under the law. 7. 1 it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that section 14 of the said Act applies to cases where the employer has removed