Shukla, J.

1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This is petitioner's second round before this Court.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a male social worker by Civil Surgeon Vidisha in the grade of Rs.110-190 vide order dated 30-6-1967 (Annexure-1). He was later designated as Family Planning Field Worker and worked under the District Family Planning- cum-Health Officer, Vidisha. By order dated 16-3-1971, the petitioner was sent for a month's training from 5-4-71 to 10-5-71. In terms of the order for training he executed a bond (Annexure-3) for reimbursing the expenses to the Government, if there was breach of condition to the effect that he would serve the State Government for a period of one year on completion of the training course. When the petitioner was already undergoing training, order dated 1-5-71 was passed terminating his services along with service" of three as no-longer required'. The order further stated that the petitioner ceased from Government service with effect from 7-5-71. This order was modified on 11-6-1971 and the date of termination of service was altered from 7-5-71 to 5-6-71.

3. The petitioner made a representation against the termination of his services. The Government of Madhya Pradesh in the General Administration Department passed an order dated 21-3-72 (Annexure-6 of the petition) to the effect that since petitioner's services along with services of three other persons were terminated under the orders of the Minister concerned in May 1971, no interference could be made on his representation. This letter was signed by the then Chief Secretary of the State Government.

4. Petitioner challenged the order of his termination in writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 157/73). The petition was partly allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 28-9-79 wherein it was observed that the reason for termination of his service was not known and the reason given in the order that his services were' no longer required' was not the true reason. The Court, therefore, directed the appropriate authority in Government. On 15-4-1980, order of the State Government in the Public Health and Family Planning Department was communicated to the petitioner, rejecting his representation.

5. The order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, but the grounds canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: It was urged firstly, that termination of petitioner's services was by way of punishment by the Minister. Secondly, a month's notice was not given to him while terminating his services. Thirdlyr, his juniors had been retained and, therefore termination of his services was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Lastly, the department of Public Health Planning in the State Government is 'Industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and the petitioner wa3 a "workman". Termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and without payment of retrenchment compensation as required under section 25-1 of the Act, it was invalid and liable to be quashed.

6. In the return filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that services of the petitioner were terminated because his work was found unsatisfactory and not by way of punishment. No stigma was cast in the order of his termination. On the second ground it was pleaded that order of termination was properly modifiled and a months' notice as required by the rules, had been duly given. On the third point it was submitted that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, because only such junior officers were retained who were found fit and competent. Lastly, it was stated that the petitioner was posted in a primary Health Centre not attached to any hospital or dispensary and therefore, he was not a 'workman' within the ambit of the Act and the provisions of the said Act wer