( 1 ) THIS group of petitions is filed by the former employees of the respondent - Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), whose services have been terminated by the Board by resorting to Regulation No. 113 of the Services Regulations which have been framed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred by section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). The said regulation has been pressed into service to summarily discharge the petitioners from service on the ground of continued absence from service despite warning to return to duty. In all cases except one the petitioners who had been transferred out of their circle had not joined the duty at the transferred place despite intimations/notices having been given to them by the Board. Their absence on duty at the place of transfer was, therefore, treated as continued absence from duty under Regulation 113 of the Regulations and their services were terminated on that ground. 1. 1. In one case the petitioner had gone abroad without waiting for the grant of permission to proceed on leave by the superior officer and the same was treated to be continued absence from duty without prior permission of the concerned authority which made her liable to be discharged from the service in view of Regulation 113 and accordingly she was discharged from the service. The facts of each case would be discussed in detail little later in this judgment. 1. 2. Since Regulation 113, which has been resorted to by the Board to bring about the end of the services of the petitioners, it has now become the main target of attack of the petitioners. It is, therefore, required to be reproduced verbatim. It reads as under :- Regulation-113 : Continued absence from duty or overstay, inspite of warning, to return to duty, shall render the employee liable to summarily discharged from service without the necessity of proceedings under the Gujarat Electricity Board Conduct, Discipline and appeal procedure. Obviously now the controversy is whether termination of the services of the petitioners with the help of Regulation 113 is just, proper and valid in light of the contentions that have been raised in the petitions and the submissions made during the course of hearing by the counsels for the parties.

( 2 ) MR. B. P. Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8587 of 1998 has submitted that in his case the termination of service is not by way of simple discharge, but it is an order of dismissal which is passed by way of penalty treating the unauthorized absenteeism as act of misconduct and, therefore, the requisite procedure under the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Board (Conduct, Punishment and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct and Appeal Rules) ought to have been followed. He has further submitted that even if the impugned order amounts to discharge simpliciter in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation 113, it would be retrenchment as defined under the provisions of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act) and before effecting the retrenchment, the Board was required to follow the procedure prescribed by the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the I. D. Act, but the same has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He has further submitted that service of permanent employee who has been in the establishment since long cannot be terminated without affording to him an opportunity of hearing. In other words, according to him, in such case the minimum requirement of following the principles of natural justice has to be complied with and when that is not done, the act becomes violative of principles of natural justice and hence bad in law. He has further submitted that the Regulation 113 is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India