( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24-11-1980 in Writ Petition No. 7 of 1979 by h. G. Mishsa, J. allowing the petition by holding that the termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 amounts to retrenchment and remitting the case for fresh decision in accordance with the observations made.

( 2. ) THE appellant No. 1 is a Public Limited Engineering Company having its factory at Birlanagar, Gwalior. Appellant No. 2 is the Secretary of the Company. The respondent No. 1 was employed as a clerk by the appellants in their factory and worked in that capacity for about 12 years since September 1957. However, his services were terminated by the appellants by order dated 8-5-1969 which reads as under:-

"we regret to inform you that your services are no longer required with immediate effect. You shall be paid one months salary in lieu of notice pay. You may collect your dues from our time office. "

The respondent No. 1 then submitted an approach application to the appellants on 30-6-1969 as required under M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Ashe received no reply, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 31 read with section 61 of the Act for declaring the said termination as illegal as it amounted to retrenchment and without paying retrenchment compensation and prayed for his reinstatement with back wages. The application of the respondent No. 1 was opposed by the appellants saying that the termination was valid and could not be challenged as it is not an order of retrenchment. However, subsequently the written statement was amended and it was alleged that the respondent No. ls services were terminated under Standing Order No. 11 of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1963, framed under M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1960, as he was inefficient and his work was unsatisfactory. Even after giving several chances for improvement, he did not show any progress in his work. The respondent No. 1 is a proprietor of M /s Hindustan Printers and he is publishing a magazine containing antisocial and anti-national matters. The respondent No. 1 submitted an application for summoning service record which was not produced. The appellants raised an objection regarding the approach application which was accepted and the application of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed but the order was set aside in revision by the Industrial Court. The respondent No. 1 examined himself and two witnesses in support of his case while the appellants examined six witnesses. The Labour Court held that the respondent no. ls services were terminated under Standing Order No. 11 and it did not amount to retrenchment by relying on the admissions of the respondent No. 1. In revision preferred by the respondent No. 1, the Industrial court held that it is, in fact, an order of dismissal under Standing Order 12 for misconduct and it did not amount to retrenchment. The respondent no. 1 then filed Writ Petition M. P. No. 7 /79 which has been allowed by a single Bench of this Court which held that the Industrial Court was not justified in holding that the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 does not amount to retrenchment in view of the decision of the Supreme court in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, A I R 1980 S C 1219. So the orders of the courts below were set aside and the case remanded for deciding the matter afresh.

( 3. ) THE appellants contended that (i) the learned Single Judge overlooked the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. M. P. R. T. Corpn, 1980 MPLJ 471. that termination of services under Standing Order 11 was not retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Act and there are two more Division Bench decisions of this Court taking the same view. (ii) The learned Single Judge could not have disturbed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Courts that the termination of services did not amount