- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is a government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act which is controlled and owned by the State government and a subsidiary company of M. P. Laghu Udhyog Nigam Limited which is carrying on business activities of development of handicrafts and handloom products. At the relevant time one Shri K. P. Thakur was the Managing Director of the appellant-company who by an order dated 6/7/1989 Annexure-D appointed Respondents 1 to 3, namely, Devendra Kumar Jain, Dilip Goel and Promod Mishra as temporary Junior Managers and by two subsequent orders both dated 8/6/1989 (Annexure E/l and 2 appointed Respondents 4 and 5, namely, Mehboob Hussain and Liaquat Mohd. Khilzi as temporary Junior Managers in the appellant Company. Soon after their appointment the appellant-Company noticed that the aforesaid appointments of Respondents 1 to 5 were made by the then Managing Director, Shri K. P. Thakur in contravention of the government Order dated 1/4/1989 Annx. B without the approval of the State government and therefore, another Managing Director successor of Shri K. P. Thakur by order dated 31/7/1989 terminated the services of Respondents 1 to 5. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order of termination in the High court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3973/83 which was allowed by judgment dated 1/12/1993 whereby the order of termination of the respondents was quashed. It has been directed that the respondents will continue in service till their services are not validly terminated. It is this order which has been challenged in this appeal.
(3.) The High court quashed the order of termination of service of respondents mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the High court took the view that the respondents' services were terminated without giving them any opportunity of hearing in consonance with the rules of natural justice and, therefore, the order of termination of service was contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and; secondly, government approval was not necessary for the appointment as contended by the appellant and that in any case no material was placed to show that the appointment was contrary to the government instructions. In our considered opinion the High court fell in serious error in taking the aforesaid view and, therefore, the order of the High court could not be sustained in law.;