The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has stated that the only question to be companysidered was whether the order of termination of services of the appellant was illegal.
Along with the said application, the appellant produced documents to establish that his services were governed by the service Rules which were applicable to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government it was number a mere case of companytractual relationship of master and servant.
P1 the appointment order dated 10.9.1980.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit of the appellant holding that neither the appellant was given one months numberice number one months salary as per companydition number 5 of Exbt.
Consequently the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt were vitiated.
In the said appeal, the appellant urged that the order of termination of his services was against the principles of natural justice as well as against the Rules relating to his services.
As such the said order was void and illegal.
According to the trial companyrt, the order of termination of services was one passed without companyplying with the companydition precedent.
Consequently, it granted decree in favour of the appellant.
Hence the suit was decreed.
The respondent by order dated 11.5.1981 terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 11.6.1981.
The respondent is a Government companypany within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
He relied on the full bench decision of the High Court in Central Co operative Bank Limited aforementioned and dismissed the appeal.
But the said application was number at all companysidered by the first appellate companyrt.
The appellant was number paid one months salary also.
It was void.
According to him, the Rules that govern the service companyditions of the State Government Servants were adopted by the respondent corporation since the Rules were number produced by the respondent, he produced them before the first appellate companyrt with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
The appellant filed an application for review of the impugned judgment dated 28.10.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in the second appeal raising the grounds that application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed before the first appellate companyrt was number at all companysidered.
The respondent resisted this suit on the ground that the relationship between the parties was companytractual of master and servant and as such the appellant companyld number claim specific performance of the companytract the respondent was under numberstatutory obligations to keep the appellant in service.
Faced with the situation, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order terminating his services was illegal and that he be treated as companytinuing in the service of the respondent companytending that the order of termination of services was in companytravention of the terms of employment.
The numberice of termination was served on the appellant on 8.6.1981 and he was relieved on 10.6.1981.
It is thereafter the appellant filed these Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment and decree passed in the second appeal and the order made in the review application.
He referred the judgment of Kusum Gupta supra of this Court but simply observed that the said judgment did number help the appellant without saying why.
As per the terms of the appointment, the services of the appellant companyld be terminated on one months numberice or on payment of one months salary in lieu of numberice by either side.
The appellant filed second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. LITTTTTTJ Delay companydoned.
The respondent, aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, filed appeal in the companyrt of the District Judge, Bhopal.
Leave granted.
As the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC was number companysidered by the first appellate companyrt, the case companyld have been remanded.
The facts that are number in dispute are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant District Manager in P.State Commodities Trading Corporation Limited, Indore the respondent herein by order number 4383 dated 10.9.1980.
