S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.

2. Perused the record.

3. The appellant who had been reinstated in service holding him entitled to the back wages for the period subsequent to December 21, 1990 by the Labour Court which was affirmed in appeal by the Industrial Court, feels aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the employer, the present respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide the impugned order whereunder quashing the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, the application filed by the present appellant before the Labour Court was dismissed. The appellant has prayed for the reversal of the impugned order.

4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass: The appellant had approached the Labour Court by means of the application dated February 11, 1991 seeking a declaration that the action of the employer dispensing with his services with effect from December 21, 1990 was illegal and he was entitled to the status of a permanent employee and entitled to the salary etc., accordingly. He had also prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. The appellant had been granted intermittent engagements as a daily wages kamgar. These engagements were time bound with a clear stipulation that it was to last only for a period of 58 days. The first appointment/ engagement was granted on October 15, 1989. Thereafter, he was granted a fresh appointment/ engagement on August 18, 1990 for a period of 58 days. Thereafter, a similar time bound engagement/appointment was granted to him on October 25, 1990 which expired on December 21, 1990. He claimed the protection envisaged in paragraph 11 of the Standard Standing Orders for all the Undertakings in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He also claimed that he was a workman and was entitled to the protection envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the impugned action amounted to illegal retrenchment. He also raised a plea that the impugned action amounted to unfair labour practice as the said action had been taken to take undue advantage. It was also asserted that in his place other workmen such as Maksud Khan, Virendrasingh Bhadoriya, Lakharam, Keshav, Shivlal and Rammilan had been appointed on regular basis after accepting Rs. 5,000/- from each of them. Since the appellant had not been able to fulfil the demand for payment of such an amount his service had been dispensed with and he was not given fresh appointment.

5. The claim of the appellant had been contested by the employer.

6. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the appellant so far as it related to his classification as a permanent employee was concerned. However, being of the view that the employer was not entitled to dispense with the service of the appellant without serving upon him a notice in this regard it came to the conclusion that the service of the appellant could not be deemed to have come to an end. In this connection, the Labour Court placed reliance upon paragraph 11 of the aforesaid Standard Standing Orders and held that dispensation of his services was invalid and illegal, granted the relief of reinstatement with back wages.

7. The employer challenged the said order in appeal. The appellate authority upheld the order passed by the Labour Court holding that the concerned employee was entitled to the protection envisaged under paragraph 1l(b) of the Standard Standing Orders since no order in writing had been issued by the employer disclosing the reasons for the termination of his service and further provision contains in Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not been complied with.

8. The learned single Judge in the impugned order placing reliance on the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipat