The legal analysis of the provided document indicates that the standing orders, specifically Clause 13, which permits termination of employment simpliciter, are subject to constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The core issue revolves around whether these standing orders have the force of law and whether their provisions violate fundamental rights to equality and non-arbitrariness (!) (!) (!) .

The court’s view is that once standing orders are certified under statutory legislation, they become statutory terms of employment, but they do not inherently possess the force of law in the constitutional sense (!) (!) (!) . Their legal standing is that of conditions of service, which can be challenged and altered through industrial dispute mechanisms, rather than as law that is immune from constitutional challenge (!) (!) (!) .

Clause 13’s provision for immediate termination without inquiry or assigning reasons is deemed arbitrary and violates the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. Such a clause confers unchecked powers on the employer, leading to potential abuse and undermining the security of employment, which is fundamental to the concept of public service and industrial stability (!) (!) (!) .

Further, the statutory provisions governing retrenchment and employment security, such as Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, are mandatory and must be strictly complied with before termination. Non-compliance renders the termination order invalid, as these provisions are designed to prevent arbitrary dismissals and ensure fair treatment (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court emphasizes that the principles of natural justice, equality, and non-arbitrariness are integral to the constitutional fabric and cannot be bypassed by employer’s unilateral standing orders or regulations. The doctrine of “hire and fire” as a blanket power is incompatible with the constitutional mandate for fairness and social justice (!) (!) (!) .

In conclusion, standing orders that provide for termination without following the prescribed statutory procedures violate constitutional rights and are therefore invalid. Terminations based solely on Clause 13, without adherence to the statutory safeguards, are liable to be quashed. Employees who have been terminated unlawfully are entitled to reinstatement and appropriate compensation, but the quantum of back wages and other benefits should be determined through industrial adjudication processes, considering whether they have been gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of unauthorized dismissal (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Overall, the legal framework underscores that employment security, fairness, and equality are protected rights under the Constitution, and employer’s powers must be exercised within the bounds of statutory and constitutional limitations. Arbitrary dismissals without proper inquiry or adherence to statutory procedures are unconstitutional and cannot be sustained (!) (!) (!) (!) .