Termination of services of a workman, even if the appointment was invalid, amounts to retrenchment and requires compliance with the pre-requisites of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.M. No. 82 of 1991 (Satyendra Singh and 31 others v. State ofMad-hya Pradesh through Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.P., Bhopal and Ors.), as both the petitions were heard analogously.

2. All the pctilioncrs by this petition have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction or order for quashmcnt of the notice and orders of termination of their services passed on December 1/5, 1990 (Annexurcs P/1-A to P/1-Q) by the Manager, Land Development Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vidisha, the respondent No. 5, while the petitioners in M.M. No. 82 of 1991 have challenged the resolution dated November 14, 1990 (Annexurc P/1) of the Board and the notice and order of termination dated November 19, 1990 (Annexure P/3), passed and issued by the respondent No. 5.

3. The petitioners contend in their petition that they were appointed on their respective posts and then were regularised, but because of political reasons one month's notice of termination of their services was given in violation of the rule of 'last come first go' and without complying with the pre-conditions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') : therefore, the orders are void.

4. In the return, the respondent/Bank and other respondents have contended that the employees were surplus, as there were no sanctioned posts vacant; the appointments of the petitioners were made illegally in violation of rules prescribed; some of the petitioners were not having the minimum qualifications as required by Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Ke Zilla Sankari Bhumi Vikas Bank Karmachariyon Ke Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Sthiti) Niyam (for short, the 'Rules'); therefore, the Board of the Bank took a decision and passed the resolution to terminate the services of the petitioners, It was denied by the Bank that the rule of 'last come first go' was violated, and for that a list, specifying the date of joining of each employee, was annexed with the return.

5. Shri R.D. Jain and Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, counsel for petitioners and Shri R.A. Roman, Government Advocate for respondents with Shri H.C. Gupta, General Manager of the Bank were heard.

6. It is not in dispute that each of the petitioners even after regularisation of their services (in both petitions) has completed more than 240 days' continuous service preceding to the order of termination. It was admitted that after giving one month's notice of termination, petitioners' services were continued because of the ad interim writ issued by this Court and all of them are working and performing their respective duties. It is also not the case of the respondent Bank that the order of termination simpliciter preceded by any charge of misconduct. It was, however, denied by the respondents that the petitioners (in both petitions), though fall within the definition of "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act, were permanent; they were on probation; therefore, their termination during the probationary period was in accordance with Rule 62 of the Rules without assigning reasons and on giving one month's notice thereof; hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

7. After hearing counsel, we are of opinion, that this Court need not deal with the rival contentions raised during the course of hearing, as the orders of termination can be struck down for non-compliance of the pre-requisites of Section 25-F of the Act. Though the petitioners contended that their employment was not on probation and, therefore, in view of Rule 63 of the Rules, the Bank was bound to follow the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act, without going into that controversy, even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the petitioners were probationers, in that case too, compliance of Section 25-F was mandatory, as has been ruled by the Apex Court in case at Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Ba