( 1 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. R. H. Mehta is appearing for the petitioner, ONGC. Learned advocate Mr. I. S. Supehia is appearing for the respondent workman. The respondent workman has raised industrial dispute being Reference (ITC) No. 37 of 1987 before the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad. The exact terms of the reference are as under :"whether the management of ONGC is justified in terminating the services of Shri D. C. SHukla, Jr. Technician (Elect), Mehsana, w. e. f. 9. 3. 84 ? If not, what relief Shri Shukla is entitled to?"before the industrial tribunal ("the tribunal " for short), the union has filed the statement of claim vide Exh. 7 and the written statement was filed by the petitioner - Oil and Natural Gas Commission ("the Commission" for short) vide Exh. 9. The workman was examined as witness before the Tribunal on 12. 1. 1988 at Exh. 27 and, thereafter, three witnesses were examined by the petitioner Commission before the Tribunal namely Shri Balakrisna Nair (11. 3. 88 Exh. 23), Shri Jayantibhai Melabhai Vasava (11. 4. 88 Exh. 41) and Shri Jayantibhai Mafabhai Parmar (26. 4. 88 Exh. 46 ). It was the case of the workman before the tribunal that he had joined the the Commission on 7/03/1969 as As contingent worker and he was appointed as Assistant Technician (elect) in a regular scale on10. 12. 1970 and, thereafter, the workman was promoted as Jr. Technician (Elect. ). Before the labour court, it was the case of the workman that he was sick, he had an attack of Pulmonary Koch and Hepatitis and that he was, therefore, not in a position to attend the duties after 10. 12. 1983 and that he had sent leave application form under certificate of posting on 12. 1. 1984 and again on 9. 4. 84 giving reasons for not reporting for duties. However, to his surprise, he received an office order intimating him that he is deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 8. 3. 84. Said order was challenged by the workman on the ground that it amounts to retrenchment in violation of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the ID Act" for short ). He challenged the said order also on the ground that such powers to terminate the services of ground that the exercise of powers to terminate the services of Regulation 14 (5) of the ONGC Leave Regulation is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, he was told that his name was deleted from the muster roll and, therefore, nothing could be done on being represented by the respondent workman.

( 2 ) IT was the case of the Commission before the Tribunal that the workman had remained absent without permission and, therefore, the action has been taken against him as per ONGC Leave Regulation No. 14 (5 ). It has also been contended, inter alia, that a show cause notice had been issued to him before passing the final order and that the workman concerned had failed to give any reply. Ultimately, the Commission has pleaded before the tribunal that the action is legal and valid and, therefore, the demand should be rejected.

( 3 ) RELEVANT Regulation 14 is quoted in the impugned award at page 3 which reads as under :14. Extra ordinary leave : (1) Extraordinary leave shall be admissible to an employee in special circumstances when:- (a) no other kind of leave is admissible under these regulations; or (b) other kind of leave being admissible, the employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. (2) The period of extraordinary leave granted on any one occasion shall not exceed three months except under the following circumstances, namely: (a) If such leave is availed of on medical grounds duly supported by Medical certificate, the maximum period admissible shall be six months; Provided that in case where such leave is required for undergoing treatment for any of the following diseases, the limit shall be 18 months:- (i) Pulmonary tuberculosis and the application for leave is supported with a certificate from a Specialist in Tub