DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J.

The subject matter of challenge in the present appeal is the judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 612 of 2002. In the writ petition the validity of an award of 7th Industrial Tribunal was under challenge. Initially the dispute which was referred to in the Tribunal was as follows:

“Whether the termination of service of Shri G. C. Guha is justified. To what relief, if any, he is entitled to?”

From the award of the Tribunal dated 18th April, 1996 it appears that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that this was a simple case of resignation and not at all a retrenchment. Such award dated 18th April, 1996 was challenged in a writ proceeding being C. O. No. 19267 (W) of 1996, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 30.10.2000. The learned Judge was of the view that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the question as to whether this was a case of resignation or not and all that the Tribunal was required to consider was whether the termination was legal, valid and whether the employee was entitled to any relief, if it is held to be illegal. The award was accordingly set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for answering the dispute strictly in terms of the reference.

After the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal, the same was adjudicated and an award was passed on 8.10.2001 in favour of the employee/workman thereby holding that termination of service of workman amounts to retrenchment and since it was done without following the mandatory provision of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination was unjustified. It was further decided that since there was no question of reinstatement of the workman as he had already crossed the age of superannuation, he was entitled to his back wages from the date of retrenchment to the date when he would have normally retired from service.

Such award dated 8.10.2001 was challenged by the Company in a writ proceeding before this Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th March, 2003 in W. P. No. 612 (W) of 2002 dismissed the writ application and hence this appeal.

It may be mentioned here that an application was filed in the Tribunal after this matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the Reference was maintainable in law or not. Such application was rejected by the Tribunal on 30.5.2001 and challenging such order a writ petition was moved before this Court being W. P. No. 1301 of 2001. Writ application was disposed of by order dated 24.7.2001 and the impugned order was set aside with the following observation.

“Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall also go into the question as to whether the Reference is bad is an incidental issue within the scope and ambit of the order dated October 20, 2000 passed in C. O. No. 19267 (W) of 1996. However, while deciding the issues and questions, the Tribunal shall bear in its mind the scope and ambit of the decision to be given in the Reference within the meaning of the ultimate order passed in C.O.No. 19267 (W) of 1996 on October 30, 2000.”

From the award dated 8.10.2001, it appears that the learned Judge, 7th Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of service of the workman amounts to retrenchment and such termination was declared unjustified as the same was done in non-compliance of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

It is the contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant that the service of the workman was never terminated by the Company and it was a simple case of resignation. No order of termination was ever issued by the Company terminating service of the workman. The learned Advocate refers to the letter of resignation dated 1st June, 1990 which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure “P-3”. The learned Advocate also refers to Annexure “P-4” and “P-5” which are reminders t