Termination of service, by whatever process it is made, is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the company is required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F before effecting the termination.

1. THIS Rule is directed against an award made by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dt. Mar. 18, 1977 in case No. VIII-260/76 in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour department, Government of West Bengal vide Order No 3900-IR/ir/10-L-185/76 dt. 7th of Aug., 1976.

2. THE petitioner contends that he was a workman working as a permanent hand in the factory of respondent 2. M/s. Harbanslal malhotra and Sons (P) Ltd., until his service was terminated by the said respondent 2. It is contended by the petitioner that he was continuing in service under the said company for more than 14 years since Feb. . 1960. It appears that the State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the following issues "whether termination of service of Sri naresh Chandra Das is justified? to what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

It appears that the petitioner submitted his written statement before the learned industrial Tribunal challenging the termination of service as illegal and unjustified and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and amenities due to him for the period of his forced unemployment. The company also filed a written statement-in-,reply to the petitioner's written statement and it was contended inte alia by the company that the name of the petitioner-workman was struck off from the Muster roll of the factory in accordance with S. O. cl. (6) (4) (a) of certified standing orders of the company. It was also stated by the company that the company sent a letter date 27th August, 1974 to the workman by registered post with and to the last known add ess, but the said letter came back with the postal remark "left" and only on 23rd september, 1974 the workman's father turned up when a copy of the letter of termination was handed over to him.

3. IT appears that the learned Industrial tribunal passed its award on 18th March, 1977 and the said award was published by the Government of West Bengal, Labour department by order dated 22nd April, 1977 and the said award is Annexure ''d" of the writ petition. The learned Seventh Industrial tribunal held that the management was justified in terminating the service of the petitioner for his unauthorised absence without any intimation and as such, he was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

4. IT is contended by the petitioner in the instant Rule that termination of service, by whatever process it is made, is retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2 (oo), of the industrial Disputes Act, and as the conditions laid down u/s. 25 F. of the I D Act were not complied with by the company, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Gupta, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner workman submits that retrenchment as appearing in S. 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is very wide in its implication and the supreme Court has interpreted S. 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act, in clear and unambiguous terms the decision made in the case of stat Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, reported in [1976-I L L. J. 478] It has been decided in the said case that breakdown of s. 2 (oo) unmistakably expands the semantics of retrenchment. "termination. . . . . . . . . for any reasons whatsoever " are the key words. Whatever the reason, every termination spells retrenchment. Termination embraces not merely the act of the termination by the employer but the fact of termination, however, produced. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that if the provision of s. 25 F is not complied with in effecting retrenchment it becomes illegal and void.

5. MR. Sen Gupta contends that even assuming that under the provisions of the standing order of the company, the company was entitled to terminate the service of the petitioner for his continued absence for the specified period without leave of the company, it cannot be held that the said action of the petitioner-company is not termination within the meaning of S. 2 (oo ). H