( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. A. R. Thakkar for the petitioner and Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt for the respondent. In this petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the award made by the labour court concerned in Reference No. 1750 of 1987 dated 13th November, 1992 wherein the reference made at the instance of the workman was dismissed by the labour court, Rajkot.

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner workman has submitted that the labour court has committed grave error in rejecting the reference. He also submitted that the facts were admitted by the respondents before the labour court as appearing from paragraph 6 that the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the muster roll without complying with the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submitted that in view of such admission of the respondent, it ought to have been held by the labour court that the action of the respondent was violative of section 25f of the ID Act, 1947. According to the submissions made by Mr. Thakkar, once the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the muster roll, it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the ID Act, 1947 and in such circumstances, retrenchment procedure is required to be followed by the respondents meaning thereby, respondents are required to comply with the mandate of section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 which was not followed by the respondents while strucking off the name of the petitioner from the muster roll and, therefore, the action of strucking off the name of the petitioner from the muster roll was violative of section 25f of the ID Act and, therefore, the labour court ought to have made the award of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that the labour court has erred in concluding that the petitioner has left the job or has abandoned the work. He relied upon the decision of the Honble apex court in the matter of L. Robert Dsouza versus The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another reported in AIR 1982 SC 854.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent has submitted that the labour court was right in appreciating the evidence before it; the labour court has not committed any error in rejecting the reference made at the instance of the petitioner; the labour court was right in holding that the petitioner abandoned the work; the labour court was right in not granting relief in favour of the petitioner. She also submitted that the workman had abandoned the work and the labour court was right in coming to such conclusion. According to her submissions, the labour court has recorded the findings of facts after appreciation of the evidence on record and, therefore, this court may not interfere with the same in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She has, thus, supported the award made by the labour court.

( 4 ) I have minutely perused the award made by the labour court. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. Considering the facts of the present case, the petitioner workman was working in the establishment of the present respondent since last six years. On 22. 7. 1987, during the course of his employment, there was accident and he received injury on his hand and, therefore, he was shifted at the hospital for treatment. According to the facts of the workman, since there was nobody to look after the workman at Gandhidham, the petitioner informed the establishment and he had gone at the residence of his brother who was residing at Mumbai and from there, he had submitted medical certificates to the establishment. After the petitioner was declared fit for service by the Doctor, the applicant had joined the service on 4. 8. 1987 and had submitted the certificates to the respondent Company. The petitioner was also present on 5. 8. 1987 and was doing the work in a routine manner. By tha