JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J.
1. The Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner by its award dated October 19, 1984. The petitioner seems to have filed a review petition for reconsideration of the award, which also came to be rejected on August 13, 1985.
2. The petitioner's case is that his services were terminated by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner raised an industrial dispute about the same. The said dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. The reference made by the Stale Government was:
"Whether the termination of service of the petitioner with effect from July 15, 1981 by the employer is legal and valid and if not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?"
3. After recording evidence of the parties the Labour Court gave the impugned award. The petitioner submits that after the award was passed against him his review application for reconsideration of the award was also dismissed but he received the orders passed on the review application in January, 1987, therefore, he could not file the writ petition before the receipt of the order on his review petition.
4. The petitioner further submits that he was not given any charge- sheet nor was any enquiry held by the employer in respect of any of the misconducts of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner did not abandon his service. He was wrongly terminated from service. After recovery of his illness the petitioner is said to have joined his duty on April 8, 1981. He has placed on record copies of some applications alleged to have been submitted by him to the respondent No. 2. It is also contended that from the records of the respondent No. 2 it would appear that the petitioner's name was struck off from the rolls on account of his continued absence. On the basis of the record the petitioner was treated to have abandoned his service. He is said to have given an explanation also with regard to his absence, which was not considered to be satisfactory. The respondent No. 2 is said to have been predetermined to terminate his service. It is stated by the petitioner that striking off his name from the rolls of the respondent No. 2 would mean retrenchment of the petitioner. The retrenchment of the petitioner was not done in accordance with law, therefore it was invalid and liable to be set aside. The petitioner's case is not said to be covered under Clause 10(6) of the Standing Orders of the company. The said clause of the Standing Orders prevent deliberate absenteeism.
5. The petitioner challenges the order of his termination as also the award of the Labour Court, inter alia., on a number of grounds. It is stated that neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to the petitioner before termination of his service nor was retrenchment compensation given to the petitioner. No charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner nor was any enquiry conducted for his alleged misconduct, therefore, the termination of his service is illegal and unjustified. The petitioner has not abandoned his service but he was wrongly thrown out from service. The petitioner is said to have been ill. He had produced medical certificates, which were not taken into consideration. The notice alleged to have been sent to him was returned undelivered on account of his non- availability. Therefore, no notice was received by him as alleged by the respondent No. 2. From notings of the file of the respondent No. 2 it would appear that the respondent No. 2 had made up his mind to terminate the service of the petitioner and bring his case with the expression 'abandonment of service by the petitioner'. The Labour Court is said to have failed to consider all these important aspects of the matter and has passed the impugned award in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
6. The admitted question in this case is that the petitioner's name was struck off from the muster-roll. This was done by the respondent No. 2 on account of his alleged continued absence from duty though he was served with notice also to resume the duty and despite the notice he, according to the respondent No. 2, did not join the duty. The Labour Court has taken it as a case of 'abandonment' and rejected his claim. The petitioner's case is that he did not abandon the service nor did he remain absent wilfully. He is said to have fallen ill, which prevented him from attending his duties and on getting well he is said to have joined his duties but his name was already struck off from the rolls. He was prevented from resuming his work. According to the petitioner this is a retrenchment of the petitioner without following the procedure established by law. The retrenchment is defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under:
"2(oo). 'Retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health".
7. The petitioner's case does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the aforesaid provisions. He had not voluntarily retired nor had he reached the age of superannuation. His case also would not fall within sub-clause (bb) of the aforesaid provision nor was he terminated from service on the ground of continued ill-health. He is said to have remained on leave for short period and during this period his name was struck off from the rolls. The notice sent to him for resumption of work was not delivered to him because it was received back as undelivered. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his service. Even otherwise voluntary abandonment would not fall within the exceptions of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Before a workman is retrenched the employer is required to follow certain procedure, the compliance whereof is mandatory. Certain conditions are to be observed before a workman is retrenched. The workman has to be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and period of notice has expired or if no notice is given the workman has to be paid wages for the period of the notice in lieu of such notice. The workman has to be paid at the time of retrenchment compensation, which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continued service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice for retrenchment is to be given to the appropriate Government or such authority, as. may be specified by the appropriate Government in the prescribed manner.
8. In the case of the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors. (1990-II-LLJ-70), the Supreme Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions had the occasion to consider the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which would; apply to a retrenched employee and the conditions, which are to be followed while ordering retrenchment. Relying on the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee and Ors, (1978-I-LLJ-l), the Supreme Court concluded that striking off the name of the workman from the rolls by the management is termination of service. Such termination of service is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. The retrenchment was held to be termination by the employer of service of a workman as surplus labour for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary actions and those expressly excluded by the definition. For ordering retrenchment it was held that the conditions precedent as laid down in Section 25-F are necessarily to be complied with.
9. The respondent No. 2 has been able to persuade the Labour Court that the petitioner abandoned his service and absented from duty. The abandonment of service is not excluded from the definition of "retrenchment". Therefore, it will amount to retrenchment and the conditions precedent as laid down in Section 25-F of the Act are necessarily to be followed. These conditions have not been followed and the Labour Court has fallen into error by holding that the petitioner's case did not fall within the ambit of "retrenchment". It has travelled beyond the limits of the reference, which was referred to it by the State Government. It had to find out whether the termination was valid or invalid. It could not hold that the petitioner had abandoned the service. The abandonment of service in the present case would not come into play. The petitioner's name was removed from the muster-roll, which would amount to retrenchment and the retrenchment is bad because it is not done in accordance with the provisions of law. The provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been followed and the Labour Court has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the award impugned in this writ petition is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The Labour Court has to give a finding about the effect of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and has to give necessary relief to the petitioner, as may be warranted under law. Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with, therefore, the Labour Court has to give the appropriate relief to the petitioner in accordance with law.
10. The award of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the case remitted back to respondent No. 1 to determine the relief, which the petitioner is entitled to get after treating him as a retrenched employee. He shall decide the matter within three months from the date of supply of a certified copy of this judgment and give appropriate relief to the petitioner, which he may be entitled to get in accordance with law.
11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.