IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5710 OF 1998 PETITION NO.5710 OF 1998 PETITION NO.5710 OF 1998 Shri Sharadchandra Raghunath Wakalkar..Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Ltd. ......Respondent None present for the petitioner and respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 28th March, 2005 : 28th March, 2005 : 28th March, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . None present for the petitioner or respondent when the matter is called out. Order dated 12th October, 1998 shows that the petitioner’s case is covered by the judgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571. Interim order was granted in terms of prayer clause (c) whereby the termination of the petitioner’s services was stayed. 2. The petitioner’s services came to be terminated by order dated September 11, 1998 relying upon condition No.3 of the Appointment letter. Considering the judgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath (supra) the services of the permanent employee cannot be terminated by invoking such a condition as was relied upon by the Respondents. In the light of that Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (S.P. (S.P. (S.P. KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.)