ORDER Oza, Ag. C. J.- 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order of termination dated 17th July 1980 passed by the Manager (Personnel) of Respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by the Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation as Processing Master by order dated 16th March 1974 and was posted in one of its units, namely, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon. 2. It is alleged that under section 3 (1) of Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Ordinance, 1974, the right, title and interest of the owner in 103 Sick Textile Undertakings including the Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, stood transferred and vested in the Central Government on 1st April 1974 and all these undertakings immediately thereafter stood transferred to and vested in the National Textile Corporation (Respondent No. 1). Under section 6 (1) of the said Ordinance. the National Textile Corporation was authorised to form subsidiary Corporation under the Companies Act, 1956 and in pursuance of the said power and authority the said National Textile Corporation has formed a subsidiary Corporation by the name and style of National Textile Corporation (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd., Bhopal, the registered office of which was later on shifted to Indore at 27, Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore. It is further alleged that the National Textile Corporation, pursuant to the powers vested in it under section 6 (2) of the Ordinance, transferred the Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon being a Sick Textile Undertaking, to the said subsidiary Corporation by order dated 23rd November 1974. 3. The Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 was passed replacing the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Ordinance, 1974. Under section 40 of this Act, any action taken under the Ordinance repealed thereby was deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act and except sections 32 and 33 of the Nationalisation Act the remaining provisions of this Act were brought into force on 1st April 1974. According to the petitioner, he being in the employment of the Sick Textile Undertakings. namely, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, which stood vested in the National Textile Corporation under section 3 (2) of the said Ordinance and the said Corporation having transferred its rights to the subsidiary Corporation, the petitioner automatically continued to be in the service of the subsidiary Corporation i. e. Respondent No.2. 4. namely, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, which stood vested in the National Textile Corporation under section 3 (2) of the said Ordinance and the said Corporation having transferred its rights to the subsidiary Corporation, the petitioner automatically continued to be in the service of the subsidiary Corporation i. e. Respondent No.2. 4. It is alleged that under section 14 (2) of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 every person not being a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and who has been immediately before the appointed day, employed in a Sick Textile Undertaking shall in so far as such person is employed in connection with the Sick Textile Undertaking which has vested in the National Textile Corporation, become as from the appointed day an employee of the National Textile Corporation and shall hold his office for service therein by the same tenure and the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and 9ther matters as he would have held the same under Sick Textile Undertaking in absence of vestage in National Corporation, and shall continue to do so, until his employment in the National Textile Corporation is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are July altered by National Textile Corporation. 5. It is further alleged that under section 16 there is a provision for transfer of employees to Sub5idiary Textile Corporation and under that section where any Sick Textile Undertaking or part thereof is transferred under this Act to a Subsidiary Textile Corporation, every person referred to in section 14 on and from the date of transfer becomes an employee of the Subsidiary Textile Corporation and the provisi0Ds of sections 14 and 15 apply to such employees as they apply to the employees of the National Textile Corporation. It is alleged that as a result of the provisions contained in sections 14, 15 and ]6 the petitioner being an employee of the Sick Textile Undertaking (Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills ltd , Rajnandgaon ) which vested in the National Textile Corporation became an employee of the National Textile Corporation on 1st April 1974. It is alleged that as a result of the provisions contained in sections 14, 15 and ]6 the petitioner being an employee of the Sick Textile Undertaking (Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills ltd , Rajnandgaon ) which vested in the National Textile Corporation became an employee of the National Textile Corporation on 1st April 1974. On transfer of the said Sick Textile Undertaking to the subsidiary Corporation by National Textile Corporation, the petitioner became on employee of the said Subsidiary Corporation with all the rights and privireges specified in section 14 (2) with effect from 23rd November 1974. 6. According to the petitioner, therefore, he was in the employment of the National Textile Corporation from 1st April 1974 to 22nd November 1974 and the said Corporation had by its resolution dated 28th October ]968 resolved to protect its employees by applying the rules applicable to the Central Government employees and hence the petitioner also continued to be governed by the Government of India fundamental and supplementary rules including Government of India orders, audit instructions and audit rules issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India from time to time. According to the petitioner, on transfer of his services to the Subsidiary Corporation on 23rd November 1974, the petitioner continued to be governed by the said Government rules adopted by the National Textile Corporation under resolution dated 28-10-1968. 7. The petitioner rendered services in the Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd , Rajnandgaon, for nearly six years and it is alleged that he performed his duties honestly and faithfully and his service record is clean. It is further alleged that the petitioner was transferred to Hira Mills, Ujjain, in or about December 1979 and since then be has been rendering service in the said Textile Undertaking i. e., Hira Mills, Ujjain. It is alleged that his career as an employee of the Corporation has been good throughout and there is nothing against him. It is further alleged that the Subsidiary Corporation framed the N. T. C. (M. P. ) Ltd., Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1976 which came in force from 1st April 1976. It is alleged that his career as an employee of the Corporation has been good throughout and there is nothing against him. It is further alleged that the Subsidiary Corporation framed the N. T. C. (M. P. ) Ltd., Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1976 which came in force from 1st April 1976. These rules were applied and brought in force in respect of the employees in the Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd. also and were circulated for being brought to the notice of the employees vide letter dated 18th May 1976 addressed to the General Manager of the Sick Textile Undertakings specified therein. According to the petitio:1er, after coming into force of these rules framed by the Subsidiary Corporation, the services of the petitioner were governed by the said rules under section 14 (2) of the Nationalisation Act. These rules have the force of law as they were framed under the statutory authority embodied under section 14 (2) of the Nationalisation Act. 8. It is also alleged by the petitioner that this Subsidiary Corporation also effected a revision of pay-secall from 1-10-1979 and an option was given to the employees to opt for the pay-scale as framed by the Subsidiary Corporation. As a condition of the option also the services of the employee were to be governed by the rules, regulations and other service conditions prescribed and presently applicable to the employees of the Subsidiary Corporation including amendments, alterations, revisions effected from time to time and it is alleged that the petitioner opted for the revised pay-scale of the subsidiary Corporation in proforma of option (Annexure-2). It is alleged that in the forms of option which were filled in by the employees including the petitioner, para 3 clearly stated that- "I agree that after electing the N. T. C. Scales, I will be governed by the Rules, Regulations and other service conditions of the Corporation and will not be entitled to the benefits of any existing or future agreement, settlement or A ward relating to pay-scales and other benefits applicable to the employees of Textile Mills of N. T. C. ( MP) Ltd." It is alleged that as the petitioner opted for these pay-scales, his services continued to be governed by the rules framed by the Textile Corporation of Madhya Pradesh. This option according to the petitioner was given on 19th November 1979. 9. This option according to the petitioner was given on 19th November 1979. 9. It is alleged by the petitioner that he received an order dated 17-7-1980 suddenly terminating his services with immediate effect on the ground that his services were no longer required. It is alleged that this order was served on him and he was relieved from duty on 24th July 1980. The petitioner filed a representation against this order of termination to the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh. This representation of the petitioner was rejected on 1st September 1980 and the petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 10. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of termination is contrary to the service rules applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, is contrary to law. According to the petitioner, his services could not be terminated except by following the procedure prescribed in the rules. He challenged the order of termination on the ground of malice and on this ground also it is contended that the order of termination could not be allowed to stand. 11. In the return filed by Respondent No.2, most of the facts are not disputed. The main defence set up in the return is that the petitioner continued to be in service of the National Textile Corporation on the same conditions as they were before 1-4-1974. It is alleged that the resolution of the National Textile Corporation dated 28-10-1968 had not the effect of altering the conditions of employment of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the respondent "No.2 framed the N. T. C. (M. P.) Lid. employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976. It is alleged in the return that the terms and conditions of employment were not altered and his services were contractual. The services were terminated as it is contended that there was no tenure fixed for service. The main controversy therefore is that the resolution of 1968 does not apply to the petitioner and further that the rules of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal are not applicable as termination of the petitioner is not for misconduct and therefore is not under the said rules. His termination was not punitive and therefore the procedure under Rule 25 need not be followed. His termination was not punitive and therefore the procedure under Rule 25 need not be followed. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till he lawfully retired and as there was no age of retirement, his services could be terminated. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Yograj Beliramji v. N. T. C. Ltd. 1983 M. P. L. J. 789. where exactly a similar situation arose and the learned Single Judge of this Court held that such a termination was not in accordance with law. It was contended by learned counsel that in fact this petition was also heard before a Single Judge but ultimately has been referred to be placed before a Division Bench. 13. The main questions involved in this petition are: (1) What were the terms and conditions on which the petitioner was appointed initially ? (2) When the rules were framed for employees of the Corporation and new pay-scales were brought in, the employees were asked to exercise option on terms and conditions as stated above and when they exercised the option and accepted the conditions of service in accordance with the new rules whether the service of the petitioner could be terminated on the ground that the initial employment was contractual ? 14. It appears that an identical question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Yograj Beliramji v. N. T. C. Ltd. (supra) and it appears that while hearing this petition, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijayvargiya although stated that he does not agree with the view taken in the decision referred to above, but has given no reasons for it and it is because of this that the matter has been placed before us. 15. Counsel for the parties frankly conceded that there is no material on the basis of which any terms or conditions of employment in the Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon. could be spelled out. It is also not disputed that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in the Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh, but it was mentioned that he will be governed by the general rules and conditions of the Mills. could be spelled out. It is also not disputed that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in the Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh, but it was mentioned that he will be governed by the general rules and conditions of the Mills. It is not disputed that he was appointed by the M. P. Textile Corporation and was posted in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, and if what is said in this appointment order about the service conditions of the Mills is referable to Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd. Rajnancgaon, then the admitted position is that tl1ere were no conditions of service in existence in that Mill. 16. It is also not in dispute that after the National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh, framed rules and regulations and prescribed pay-scales, the employees were asked to give option and the documents which were signed by the employees, specially the petitioner, which is Annexure F-2, clearly reads: “I agree that after electing the N. T. C. Scales, I will be governed by the Rules, Regulations and other service conditions of the Corporation and will not be entitled to the benefits of any existing or future agreement, settlement or Award relating to pay• scales and other benefits applicable to the employees of Textile Mills of N. T. C. ( M. P. ) Ltd." This condition imposed in the option clearly indicated that these employee~ were called upon to accept the National Textile Corporation pay-scales on' condition that they agree that they will be governed by the rules, regulations and other Service conditions of the Corporation, and it is on this specific condition, it is not disputed, that the petitioner was continued in service after exercise of this option. 17. It is also contended that there are no rules framed laying down the age of superannuation but as is alleged by the - petitioner that by a resolution National Textile Corporation adopted the Central Government rules and if they are considered to be the rules, then the age of superannuation will be what is the age of superannuation for the Central Government employees. Apart from it, it is apparent that the National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh may frame rules for that purpose also as in the option the employees bad accepted to be governed by the rules so framed by the National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh. Apart from it, it is apparent that the National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh may frame rules for that purpose also as in the option the employees bad accepted to be governed by the rules so framed by the National Textile Corporation, Madhya Pradesh. Under these circumstances, therefore, it is clear the original terms and conditions, if any, were replaced by this option exercised by the petitioner and it is in this context that if section 14 (2) of the Sick Textile Undertakings ( Nationalisation) Act is considered, the only inference that could be drawn is that such a termination of employment of the petitioner which is not justified by any rule framed by the National Textile Corporation. Madhya Pradesh, could not be maintained. Section 14 (2) reads: "(2) Every person who is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and who has been immediately before the appointed day employed in a sick textile undertaking shall in so far as such person is employed in connection with the sick textile undertaking which has vested in the National Textile Corporation become as from the appointed day an employee of the National Textile Corporation and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same under the sick textile undertaking if it had not vested in the National Textile Corporation and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the National Textile Corporation is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the National Textile Corporation: Provided that in respect of any sick textile undertaking the management of which could not be taken over the Central Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972 by reason of any decree, order or injunction of any court, any agent, director (including a managing or whole time director by whatever name called) manager shall not become an employee of the National Textile Corporation." It is in this context that in the decision in Yograj Beliramji's case (supra) the learned Single Judge held that an order of termination not justified under the rules could not be held to be good. Section 16 of this Act further provided for transfer of the undertaking from the National Textile Corporation to a Subsidiary Corporation and that only brings in section 14 (2) and in the context of this section the option exercised quoted above clearly reveals that the petitioner's service conditions were altered to the rules framed by the Corporation. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent had the option to terminate the service of the petitioner under the original terms of employment but that contention cannot be accepted in view of the language of section 14 (2) where it is stated that "unless and until his employment in the National Textile Corporation is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the National Textile Corporation." Such a right, if at all could have been exercised when an option was given to the petitioner and before giving him the option it could have been said that the Corporation does not want to continue the petitioner in service but having taken the - option from the petitioner in terms as have been quoted above. it is clear that the terms and conditions of employment have been altered by the National Textile Corporation has stated in the part of the section quoted above. 19. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned it is also interesting that although in the order of appointment it was stated that he will be governed by the terms and conditions of employment of the Mills but the respondent has not been able to place any such terms or conditions on record. 19. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned it is also interesting that although in the order of appointment it was stated that he will be governed by the terms and conditions of employment of the Mills but the respondent has not been able to place any such terms or conditions on record. There is also nothing in the order of appointment indicating that the respondent bad any contractual right to terminate the service of the petitioner as such a condition on number of occasions is stated in the order of appointment itself but it is clear that in the present case there is no such condition in the order of appointment as well and therefore there is no basis for the contention that there is any right left with the respondent after the rules were framed and made applicable to the conditions of service of the petitioner to terminate his service and in this view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge referred to above could not be said to be erroneous in any manner. 20. I earned counsel referred to a number of decisions but none of decisions precisely come to his help. The only decision which could be said to be of some assistance to the counsel for the respondent was a decision of the Bombay High Court in Manohar P. Kharkhar v. Raghurai [1]. but that decision does not lay down any law. On the contrary, it is a decision on its own facts and. therefore, could be of no help in the present case. The two decisions of the Calcutta High Court, which accidentally pertain to the National Textile Corporation itself, are also of no help. 21. learned counsel for the respondent also attempted to contend that a writ petition under Article 226 will not lie against the National Textile Corporation. Although it is not in dispute that this is a State Corporation and apart from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Chandra Mukherjee etc. v. National Textile Corporation 1983 1 L. L. J. 244, the Calcutta High Court held that National Textile Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this count cannot, therefore, be accepted. 22. v. National Textile Corporation 1983 1 L. L. J. 244, the Calcutta High Court held that National Textile Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this count cannot, therefore, be accepted. 22. In the light of the discussion above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 17th July 1980 passed against the petitioner terminating his services is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/- if certified. Security amount deposited by the petitioner be: refunded to him.