JUDGMENT :

Dr. B. R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner files this application seeking for a direction to Opposite Party NO.3 to accept his joining report dated 26.06.1999 in view of the direction given by the OppositeParty NO.2 dated 11.11.1999 and allow him to discharge duty and also grant all consequential service benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.

2. The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner was engaged as an Ancillary Worker under F.C.I., F.S. Depot, Dhenkanal, pursuant to which he joined on 06.07.1992. Accordingly, an Identity card was issued in his favour by the District Manager of the Corporation registering him as Ancillary Worker having registration No. 182 vide Annexure-1. The petitioner was also enrolled as a member of a registered trade union as per Annexures2 to 4. As he was critically ill, he was advised complete bed rest and medical certificate in support of such illness has been produced vide Annexure-5. After he was found fit, a joining report was submitted on 10.06.1999 before the Opposite Party NO.3 vide Annexure-3. The said joining report has not been accepted, therefore he approached the OppositeParty NO.2 by filing representation vide Annexure-7. On consideration of the same, Opposite Party NO.2 vide letter dated 11.11.1999 in Annexure-8 directed the petitioner to resume duty. It is also indicated in the said letter that in case he fails to join, he would be faced with disciplinary proceeding. On receipt of such letter when the petitioner rushed to join on 22.11.1999, his joining was refused by Opposite Party No.3, who advised him to meet Opposite party NO.2 at Cuttack. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 26.11.1999 by registered post with A. D., but no action has been taken by the authorities till date. Hence, this application.

3. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner was not allowed to join or resume duty, it amounts to termination of service, which is in gross violation of the provisions under the Industrial Dispute Act as well as the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he seeks for a direction to opposite party NO.3 to accept the joining report of the petitioner in view of the order passed by opposite party NO.2 vide Annexure-8 and grant him all consequential service benefits admissible in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court on 25.08.2000, Mr. S. K. Nayak-1, learned Senior Counsel and associates have entered appearance for Opposite Party NO.1 to 3 by filing Vakalatnama on 23.11.2000. But no counter affidavit has been rebutted in any manner in order to dislodge the claim made by the petitioner.

5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since no materials has been placed before this Court by the opposite parties and since there is no rebuttal contention raised by the opposite parties, applying the principles of doctrine of non-traverse, this Court proceeded with the matter on the' basis of the materials available.

6. The sole contention raised by Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not allowed to discharge duty pursuant to joining report dated 22.11.1999 filed before the Opposite Party No. 3 and thereafter the same was submitted by registered post with A.D. on 26.11.1999. Non-acceptance of joining report, amounts to termination of service and for termination of service, mandatory provisions under the Industrial Dispute Act are required to be followed. The same having not been followed, termination itself is void ab-initio.

7. Relying on the ratio decided in Pradeep Kumar Mohanty V. State of Orissa and others, 1994 (I) OLR 480, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mandatory provisions under Industrial Dispute Act having not been followed, the petitioner continues to be in service till he attains the age of superannuation or till his dismissal or retrenchment or ter