A. R. TEWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 482 of 93 Kedar Nath and others v. Narmada Sahakari Tel Prakriya samiti Maryadit Barwah and others. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts, as projected in both these petitions, are that the petitioners were employees of respondent No. 1 which owned the factory of oil extraction at Barwaha. It incurred huge losses. In order to salvage the situation, committee, comprising Additional Registrar, Co-operative societies, Executive Director, Oil Fed and General Manager (Project) oil Fed was constituted to suggest ways and means to overcome the problems. This Committee suggested, inter alia, that factory, together with its establishment including employees, be handed over to respondent No. 1 on lease. This suggestion was accepted and agreement was executed between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners, as also other employees, were thus asked to work under respondent No. 2 under same terms and conditions of the employment. The respondent No 2, however, terminated the contract of service vide orders Annex. P/13, P/14 and P/15, impugned in M. P. No. 482/93 and orders Annexure P/15 to P/26 as challenged in M. P. No 533/93 without assigning any reasons and directed payment of one months salary in terms of clause 2 of the contract. Dissatisfied by the termination three employees have filed petition No. 482/93 and twelve employees have filed connected petition No 533/93 ( 3 ) THE respondents have filed return opposing the petitions. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for all sides. Official Liquidator Shri s. K. Verma is also present as respondent No. 1 has gone in liquidation. ( 5 ) IT is now settled law that termination of service on mere term of one month's notice or pay, without reasons, is per se, illegal and unconstitutional. In AIR 1987 SC 111 O. P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and others, it is held that"there is, under the circumstances, no escape from the conclusion that R. 31 (v) of the aforesaid ITDC rules which provides for termination of the services of the employees of the respondent corporation simply by giving 90 days notice or by payment of salary for the notice period in lieu of such notice, deserves to be quashed. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid orders of termination of service are thus utenable in law. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid orders of termination of service are thus utenable in law. Moreover, termination can be made only by respondent No 1. in any case, the services of petitioners will revert back to their initial employer i, e. respondent No 1. ( 7 ) THE liquidator, however, frankly submitted that employees, similarly situate have been accepted back in service of respondent No 1 and on the principle of "like should be treated alike," expressed preparedness to accept the petitioners of both these petitions back in service and to pay all monetory benefits to them right from the date of the aforesaid orders as impugned herein. He only prayed for reasonable time to translate, the preparedness into reality. ( 8 ) THIS expression solves the problem and satisfies the petitioners. After all Art 21 of the Constitution of India includes also "right of livelihood". ( 9 ) IN the result, I quash aforesaid orders, marked Annexure P/13 to p/15 of M. P. No. 482/93 and Annexures P/15 to P/26 of M. P. No. 533/83 both as illegal and unconstitutional and also on the basis of the statement of liquidator as noted above and direct respondent No 1 to treat the petitioners as continuing in service without break and to pay to them back wages, as also other benefits, if permissible under service conditions and law, wiihin a period of three months from the date of this order. ( 10 ) BOTH these petitions are thus allowed but without any order as to costs Security amount, if any, is made refundable to petitioners of each petition after due verification. ( 11 ) LET writs be issued in terms of directions as contained above. ( 12 ) A copy of this order shall be placed in the record of M. P. No. 482/93. Petitions allowed .