JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— Respondent Shri Niranjan Dass was employed as a Senior Clerk by the appellant-company as per the appointment order contained in the letter dated April 10, 1962. The letter of appointment inter alia provided that the respondent may be posted anywhere in India or abroad as per the requirements of the company and it was signed by its Zonal Manager, Central Zone, Delhi. Respondent continued to serve in that capacity when on September 14, 1967, he was served with a notice terminating his services. The notice reads as under:

"Due to the reduction in the volume of business of the Company as a result of the recession your services will not be required by the company after the 14th Oct., 1967, and this may be treated as statutory notice of one month of termination of your service. Your leave shall run concurrently with the notice period, and you may avail of leave due to you, if any, during the notice period. Personnel Section at Head Office have been advised to settle your dues, and you may write to them in the matter.

We take this opportunity. to thank you for your past services, and it is very unfortunate that the present circumstances have compelled us to issue this notice.

Should it be possible for us to offer you a job at any of our works sites at a later date; we shall make you a fresh offer at that time."

Respondent raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government by the order dated May 30, 1968 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The reference was couched in the following language.

"Whether the retrenchment of Shri Niranjan Dass is unjustified or illegal and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect." By the, award dated February 25, 196 the Industrial Tribunal held that the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal and unjustified and gave a declaration that he continues to be in service,. of the appellant-company and is entitled to his wages till he is lawfully retrenched. Appellant. company challenged the award in Civil Writ No. 462 of 1969* filed by it in the High Court of Delhi. A learned single Judge held that as the Delhi office of the appellant. company was closed, the case of the respondent would be governed by Section 25-FFF being termination consequent upon closure, and therefore. payment of compensation was not a condition precedent and the termination of service was valid. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide what directions, if any, are necessary in respect of retrenchment of the respondent in the light of the discussion in the judgment. Respondent preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1970 against the decision of the learned single Judge. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that the reference made by the appropriate Government required the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the retrenchment was illegal or unjustified and therefore it was implicit in the reference itself that it was a case of retrenchment, validity of which was to be examined in the reference and therefore it was not open to the learned single Judge to change the base of the reference and to come to the conclusion that the case was one of closure of the industrial undertaking governed by Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. Approaching the matter from this angle, the Division Bench set aside the decision of the learned single Judge and restored the award made by the Industrial Tribunal. Hence this appeal by the company by special leave.

* Reported in ILR (1970) 1 Delhi 701.

2. The Industrial Tribunal held that respondent was retrenched from service by the appellant and the pre-conditions for a valid retrenchment were not complied with and therefore the respondent was entitled to a declaration that he continues to be in service with all the benefits flowing from the said declaration. A learned single Judge of the High Court interfered with this award holding that the appellant-company