ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Respondent 1 was appointed as a Daily-rated Workman by the Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry on 10-8-1985. He stopped attending work with effect from 30-6-1986. He did not report for duty thereafter, but instead almost three years later, on 11-5-1989 he served a demand notice claiming reinstatement with attendant benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act"). A reference was, therefore, made under Section 10(1) of the Act to the effect :

"Whether the services of Om Parkash were terminated or he abandoned the job himself ? In either event, to what relief is he entitled ?"

The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar, came to the conclusion that the employer had terminated his services which amounted to retrenchment and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act. Noticing that there was a delay of almost three years preceding the demand notice, the authority took the view that since he was an illiterate and uneducated person unaware of his rights, the delay should be overlooked. The authority took the view that there had been a breach of Section 25-F and, the