The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the events and the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in determining the entitlement to reinstatement and compensation.

( 1 ) EVERY litigant, especially one appearing in person believes (and I think rightly) that the hearing of his or her case is the most important event of the day. It is sometimes difficult to limit, the submissions of such a litigant. The adverse effect of this, which has happened in the present case, is the undue prolongation of the hearing. Arguments in this case would have normally concluded in a couple of days; but, since Respondent No. 1 was represented by her husband, who was so full of the case that the arguments stretched interminably.

( 2 ) IN fact, on 24/11/2000 I was compelled to pass the following order:-

"further arguments heard. The husband of the workman has been continuously addressing the Court on the last three dates. He has been repeatedly told that if the case does not finish on this side of the vacations, it will have to be released from "part heard". The oral observations have had no effect and that is why it has been put down in the form of an order. To come up on 1/12/2000 in the category of regular Matters . "

( 3 ) TO be fair to the lady, one of the reasons for the long drawn out arguments was that her case has been going on for about 29 years - long enough to try anyone s patience. She had, therefore, a lot to say in her favour. There was also a change in my jurisdiction, with the result that the case could be heard, if at all, only on a Friday. The case was heard, for almost a full Saturday, but even then the hearing did not conclude. I am, therefore, not giving the various dates of hearing except to say that arguments commenced on 22/9/2000 and concluded on 31/8/2001 when judgement was reserved.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 (hereinafter called the Respondent) was, at the relevant time, employed with K. G. Khosla and Co. Pvt. Ltd. now K. G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. (hereinafter called the Petitioner ).

( 5 ) IN 1972, the Respondent applied for and was granted maternity leave from 1/3/1973 till 29/5/1972. On 30/5/1972 she rejoined duties but five days later, she applied for medical leave, which was granted from 5/5/1972 till 10/6/1972. She is said to have applied for extension of leave which was not granted since the leave application was not accompanied by a medical certificate from the competent authority. The allegation against the Respondent is that she remained absent from her duties from 11/06/1972.

( 6 ) THE Petitioner served the Respondent with a letter dated 29/6/1972 informing her that she was considered absent from duty with effect from 1 1/06/1972. According to the Petitioner, this amounted to abandonment of service and, therefore, her name was struck off the rolls.

( 7 ) THE Respondent replied to the above letter on 3/7/1972 contending that the action of the Petitioner amounted to retrenchment, for which she was entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The. Respondent requested for payment of her dues, which included retrenchment compensation, notice pay, gratuity, arrears of salary, salary in lieu of earned leave and bonus.

( 8 ) THE Petitioner sent its response by a letter dated 10/7/1972 asking the Respondent to attend to her duties on 17/7/1972, failing which it shall be presumed that she is not interested in joining her duties. It was also stated in the letter that the Petitioner was "constrained to remove your name from the rolls as you have abandoned service. . . "

( 9 ) THE response of the Respondent was rather categorical. She stated in her letter of 12/7/1972 that:-

"you seem to have misread my letter dated 3/7/1972. I have not asked you, at all, for reinstatement but for compensation which is due to me for retrenchment. It appears that either you are confused or you do not want to face the consequences of having retrenched me from the services of the Company. "

( 10 ) THE Respondent also stated in this letter that she had visited the offices of the Petitioner and had been informed by K. L. Mehra, Manager Administration on 3/7/1972