R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) CASE called out in revised list. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Girish Kumar Chaturvedi was serving with Cement Corporation Limited Churk, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), as chemist. He was initially appointed on 5.9.1964 as a shift chemist. In due course of time he was promoted as Chemist, then as Deputy Chief Chemist on 15.9.1980. He was a regular and permanent employee of the Corporation. The Managing Director by the impugned order dated 28.7.1982 terminated the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The order is being reproduced below: - - The services of Shri G.K. Chaturvedi, Dy. Chief Chemist, Churk, are no longer required by the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. His services are therefore, terminated with immediate effect in accordance with Rule 23 of the Employees Service Rules of the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Shri Chaturvedi will be paid three months salary in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a permanent regular employee of the Corporation and he was serving there since 1964, there was no complaint against his work and conduct. Services of a permanent regular employee cannot be terminated in this manner. Learned Counsel has also submitted that Rule 23 of the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Churk (Mirzapur) Service Rules is void being violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railways : AIR 1964 SC 600, West Bengal Electricity Board v. Deshbandhu Bose : 1985 (50) FLR 456 (SC) and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Vijay Nath, 1986 L.I.C. 1312. For appreciating the controversy, it shall be relevant to quote Rule 23 mentioned above: (1). Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Corporation and the regular employees such employee may resign from the service of the Corporation at any time on giving to the Corporation at least three months' notice in writing of his intention to do so or on payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of salary for the period of notice, or as the case may be, for the period by such notice falls short of the said period of three months. (2). Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Corporation and the regular employee the corporation shall be entitled to terminate the services of an employee on giving him not less than three months' notice in writing or on payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of salary for the period of notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the said period of three months, provided that no such notice or pay in lieu thereof will be required to be paid when the service of an employee is terminated by way of punishment for an act of misconduct or when an employee retires on attaining the age of superannuation.
(3.) RULE 23(2) provides that the services of an employee may be terminated by three months' notice in writing or on payment of equivalent amount in lieu of the notice. The impugned order has been passed against petitioner under the aforesaid provision. In the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court the controversy was identical. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such a rule is void being violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act, and contest and arbitrary and unguided power to terminate service of regular employee unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified and the impugned order passed against petitioner cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.7.1982, Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.;