JUDGMENT The petitioner was employee of respondent No. 1 which owns factory of Oil Extraction at Barwaha. The petitioner was appointed as peon by order dated 29.6.90 and was later on confirmed on the said post. The contention of the petitioner is that he continued in service without any break right from 29.6.90 to 23.1.1993 as permanent employee. The petitioner is challenging his order of termination of service passed by respondent No. 2, and is also praying for quashing of Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3. A statement by the counsel appearing for parties has been made that similar orders were challenged by other employees in M.P. No. 533 of 93 and the said petition was allowed by this Court on 24.6.94. The counsel have further submitted that this petition is also identical in nature and can be disposed of on the same lines. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Respondent No. 1 had 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 No. 1 and No. 2. The petitioner as also other employees were thus asked to work under respondent No.2 under the same terms and conditions of the employment. The respondent No. 2, however, terminated the contract of service, without assigning any reasons and directed payment of one month's salary in terms of clause (2) of the contract. Dis-satisfied by the termination the petitioner has filed this petition. Show cause notice was directed to be issued to the respondents by this Court on 9.11.94. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their return. In their return they have denied that the petitioner is entitled for any relief. The matter was listed for further hearing on 4.8.1995. On the said date counsel for all parties had appeared except for respondent No. 1. Therefore, SPC was directed to be issued to respondent No. 1 and the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.9.1995. But on the said date also no-one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. The matter was listed for further hearing on 4.8.1995. On the said date counsel for all parties had appeared except for respondent No. 1. Therefore, SPC was directed to be issued to respondent No. 1 and the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.9.1995. But on the said date also no-one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 has raised a ground that even though, the matter involved in this petition is covered by the order passed in M.P. No. 533 of 93, but the petitioner is not entitled to grant of similar relief as have been granted to other employees by the aforesaid order as the petitioner had not approached this Court earlier. The petitioner has submitted his affidavit in which he has stated that in 1984 riots, he was injured and had received bullet injuries. Thereafter he had an attack of paralysis. For all these reasons he was not able to prefer the petition earlier. There is no denial of these facts as mentioned by the petitioner. Consequently I hold that the petition is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. It is new settled law that termination of service on mere term of one month's notice or pay without reason is per se, illegal and unconstitutional. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC, 111 (O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd and others). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner's termination of service is thus untenable in law. Moreover, termination can be made only by respondent No. 1. In any case the services of the petitioner will revert back to its initial employer i.e. respondent No. 1. It has been brought to my notice that other employees, similarly situate have been accepted back in service of respondent No. 1 and on the principle of "like should be treated alike" the petitioner is also entitled to all mandatory benefits right from the date of the aforesaid order as impugned herein. As mentioned above both parties have already informed the Court that the matter in issue has already been decided by this Court in the earlier petition. The copy of the order has also been filed by them. As mentioned above both parties have already informed the Court that the matter in issue has already been decided by this Court in the earlier petition. The copy of the order has also been filed by them. Consequently in the result it is directed that the impugned order Annexure P-1 by which the petitioner's services have been terminated is hereby quashed. The other two orders Annexures P-2 and, P-3 are also quashed. It is further directed that the respondent No. 1 shall treat the petitioner as continuing in service without break and pay to him back wages as also of benefits, if permissible under service conditions and law within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. This petition is thus allowed, but without any order as to costs. Let writ be issued in terms of the directions as contained above.