Shri Abdul Salam vs Abdul Khalik Abdul Samad And Ors. on 1 July, 1960
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that though the respondent-conductors were discharged from service because they had permitted overloading of their buses in contravention of the permits and though the petitioner in his replies to the applications under Section 16 loosely stated that the conductors had been dismissed from service, the orders discharging the conductors from service were nonetheless orders terminating their services and not orders of their dismissal from service; and that these orders were not hit either by Section 42 of the Act or by Section 31 read with entry No. 3 of Schedule II of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on Provincial Transport Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, 1957 Nag LJ 569, and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hiralal v. The State Industrial Court, M. P. Indore, Misc. Petn. No. 374 of 1958, D/- 14-9-1959 (MP).