Termination of employment by operation of Certified Standing Orders, even if automatic, constitutes "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and attracts the provisions of Section 25-F, which mandate compensation to the affected workman.

B.P. Singh, J.

The petitioner-Corporation has impugned the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad, in Reference no. 127 of 1990 whereby the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman, respondent no. 2 herein, and declared that the action of the Management of the petitioner-Corporation in terminating the services of the aforesaid workman with effect from 11-5-1988 was not justified. The Tribunal took the view that even if in terms of the relevant clause of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, respondent No. 2 lost lien on appointment having been absent from duty for eight consecutive days without obtaining leave, the termination of his service on such ground also amounted to "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the order of termination was set aside and the Management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with full wages from 11-5-1983 treating the period of absence from duty from 19-1-1988 to 10-5-1988 as an extra ordinary leave without pay, but with benefit of continuity of service and other benefits.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The question urged before me being a pure question of law, it is not necessary to refer to all the detailed facts of the case, but the salient facts, in so far as they are material, for the purpose of the instant writ petition may be briefly noticed. Respondent no. 2 was a workman of the petitioner-Corporation. By order dated 13/14th January, 1988, communicated to him on the 15th January, 1988, respondent no. 2 was transferred from Barauni to Kanpur. He was required to join at Kanpur but despite repeated directions issued to him he did not do so. The petitioner remained absent, though he had applied for leave with effect from 16-1-1988. The petitioner-Corporation offered him pay upto 18-1-1988 and relieved him from duty to enable him to join at Kanpur in the afternoon of 18-1-1988. From 19-1-1988 till 10-5-1988 respondent no. 2 was absent from duty and his application for leave on medical ground was not entertained by the Management in this background on 11-5-1988 a letter was issued by the petitioner-Corporation to respondent no. 2 informing him that in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders, particularly Clause 13 thereof, respondent no. 2 had lost lien on his appointment and had thus voluntarily resigned his service. His name had, accordingly, been struck off from the rolls of the Corporation with immediate effect.

3. Thereafter, on 11.7.1988 respondent no. 2 submitted his joining report, but the same was refused on the ground that in view of the order of transfer there was no question of his 'joining at Barauni. An industrial dispute was raised and upon failure of the conciliation proceeding the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad.

The reference was made in the following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil. Corporation Ltd., Barauni-Kanpur Pipe Line Division, Barauni in terminating the services of Sri Satya Narayan Rai. Operator Gr. 'B' w.e.f. 15.1.88 is justified. If not what relief is the workman entitled to?

4. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal' took the view that under clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders a workman lost his lien on appointment if he remained absent continuously for a 'period of eight days or• more. However, since the loss of lien on the appointment resulted in termination of his services, it amounted to "retrenchment" within the meaning of the term defined in section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since there was non-compliance with the provision of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of service of respondent no. 2 was not in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation strongly urged before me that the Tribunal fell into a