S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri K. N. Gupta, Government Advocate representing the respondent No. I/State on advance notice.

2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition praying for a direction requiring the respondents to continue in service of the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the post of Time Keeper and prohibiting them not to terminate his services otherwise than in accordance with law. He has further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to absorb him in a permanent post according to the rules applicable to the Municipalities and for quashing of the order dated December 31, 1999 issued by the State Government. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to release his salary for the month of December 1999 and onwards."

4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims that he had been engaged by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ambah on daily wage basis and has throughout been discharging his duties attached to the post of Time Keeper since April 27, 1995. It is further claimed that the Nagar Palika Parishad ought to have absorbed him in the regular service classifying him as a permanent employee but the representation sent by him in this regard went in vain. It is further asserted that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer and the Nagar Palika Parishad had passed a resolution on November 10, 1999 for taking appropriate action in accordance with rules after obtaining approval from the State Government indicating that a post to accommodate him was vacant but nothing has been done. The petitioner claims that even though the rules regulating the service conditions of the Municipal Council have been framed under the Municipalities Act, 1961 but the petitioner being a workman contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his service conditions are governed by the Special Act, namely; Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further stated that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Standard Standing Orders, the petitioner has acquired the status of a permanent employee on the post against which he has been appointed which is a post falling in Class-III category and he is entitled for absorption according to Rules 8 to 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Service (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968. In this connection, it is further asserted that the Nagar Palika Parishad is an "industry" as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is also an undertaking as contemplated under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. It is also claimed that the petitioner entitled to the benefits available under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rule 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and the action dispensing with his services amounts to an illegal and unauthorised retrenchment.

5. It may be noticed that the State Government had issued a direction on July 6, 1999 and thereafter on December 31, 1999, requiring all the Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika and Nagar Panchayat to dispense with the service of all the employees engaged on daily wage basis subsequent to January 1, 1989 excepting those of the specified category (safai karmachari) latest by January 15, 2000. It may further be noticed that previously the State Government had issued an order providing a scheme for regularisation of the employees engaged on daily wage basis and had fixed the cut-off date for the purpose to be December 31, 1988. The procedure was prescribed for obtaining the sanction and creation of the posts to accommodate daily