( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition no. 1465/82 and Misc. Petition No. 1463/82 respectively which have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

( 2. ) THESE petitions relate to illegal termination of Mohan Tiwari respondent No. 1 in Misc Petition No. 1464/82, Kailash Singh Chouhan respondent No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 1465/82 and Pratap Yadav respondent No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 1463 /82, by the orders respectively dated 21-9-1979, 26-9-1979 and 26-9-1979 passed by the petitioners.

( 3. ) THE short facts leading to all the three petitions are as under: m Is. Maheshwari and Bernard is a registered partnership firm and carries on the trade of cinema industry which is named and styled as Anand Talkies located in Napier-Town. Jabalpur. All the three respondents referred to above were employed as gate-keepers under the management of the petitioners.

( 4. ) IT is alleged in all the three petitions by the petitioner that the respondents without any substantial cause were indulging in criminal activities which has resulted in financial loss to the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically stated the unlawful acts committed by the respondents i. e threatening and abusing the customers, causing illegal strikes, and abusing and insulting Shri Bernard who is one of the partners. According to the petitioner all these unlawful activities of the respondents resulted in misconduct and unsatisfactory work as defined under the provisions of Standing Orders but due to the violent activities of the respondents, it was not possible for them to conduct the regular departmental (domestic) enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. Therefore, there was no alternative but to terminate the services of the respondents and hence under these compelling circumstances referred to above, the petitioner has terminated the service of the respondents vide orders dated 21-9-1979 and 26-9-1979. The petitioner, however, termed this termination order as a dismissal order.

( 5. ) ALL the three respondents by invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the act) have submitted applications before the Labour Commissioner, Indore, for making an appropriate reference to the Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudicating the disputes in accordance with law. The Labour Commissioner had made the reference to the Labour Court at Jabalpur.

( 6. ) THE respondents have taken the common plea that their dismissal / termination order amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) read with section 25-F of the Act and under section 58 of the m. P. Shops and Establishments Act read with Rule 14 framed thereunder, the termination orders not only being bad in law but are also ab initio void. As such, the orders are nullities for non-observance of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act which is of imperative nature and, therefore, the orders of dismissal/termination are to be set aside and all the respondents be reinstated on their respective jobs with full back wages.

( 7. ) THE petitioner in all the three cases has filed its reply stating that orders of termination in question are orders of dismissal and, therefore, no case is made out within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Act, hence question of complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act does not arise at all. As far as violation of Shops and Establishments Act is concerned, it is stated that at the most, the respondents are liable to get one months salary. The petitioner also prayed for an opportunity to lead fresh evidence so as to justify their action of respondents dismissal from service.

( 8. ) THE respondent No. 2 Labour Court by its common order dated 22-10-1982 Which is contained in all the three writ petitions as Annexure G negatived the defence raised by the petitioner and has held that terminations of services of all the three respondents are illegal resulting i