The main legal point established is the broad interpretation of 'retrenchment' under S.25G, emphasizing its applicability to all cases of termination and rejecting restrictions based on eligibility for S.25F benefits.

1. The points raised in these two writ petitions and the relief claimed therein being identical, they have been heard together on the suggestion of both sides. There are 11 petitioners in O. P No 1951 of 1980 and 5 petitioners in O. P. No. 2134 of 1980. All of them were appointed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as reserve Conductors on a purely temporary basis under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the provisions of which have been made applicable to personnel in the service of the Corporation The orders of appointment given to the writ petitioners contained a recital that the appointments were to enure only for a period of 89 days The grievance with which the petitioners have come up to this Court is that steps are being taken by the Corporation to discharge them from service without complying with the procedure laid down in S.25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). According to the petitioners, despite the fact that their orders of appointment contained a specification of the duration of their tenure in the posts in question, the termination of their service constitutes "retrenchment" for the purpose of the Act and hence the provisions of S 25G are attracted in their case. In answer to the aforesaid contention the stand taken by the 1st respondent-Corporation is that the termination of the services of temporary employees appointed only for a period expressly specified in the orders of appointment will not constitute retrenchment and hence there is no scope for the petitioners to invoke the aid of S 25G in their favour Another point advanced on behalf of the respondents is that none of the petitioners has been in continuous service for not less than one year under the Corporation so as to become entitled to the benefit of S.25F and that the provisions of S.25G should be regarded as applicable only in respect of employees eligible for the benefit conferred by S.25F. Counsel also submitted before us that the provisions of R.9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules should be regarded as an implied term of the contract of appointment of the petitioners and hence there is an agreement between the employer and the workman as contemplated by S.25G entitling the employer, namely, the Corporation, to terminate the service of the temporary employees without complying with the procedure laid down in S.25G.

2. The contention put forward by the petitioners that the termination of their service would constitute retrenchment notwithstanding the fact that they are temporary employees appointed only for the duration of the time specified in the orders of appointment has to be upheld in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (MR. 1980 SC. 1219) laying down that the expression 'retrenchment' must include every termination of the service of a workman by an act of the employer irrespective of the nature of the reason for such termination. Hence we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation that the proposed termination of the service of the petitioners will not constitute retrenchment under the Act.

3. The next question to be considered is whether there is any justification for restricting the scope and applicability of S.25G to cases where the employees concerned have been in continuous service of the employer for not less than one year so as to be entitled and thereby qualified to claim the benefit of S.25F. S.25F and 25G are totally independent provisions though both of them deal with the topic of retrenchment of workmen. While S.25F confers certain special rights such as entitlement to notice and payment of retrenchment compensation on workmen who had been in continuous service for not less than one year, S.25G is a general provision covering all cases of retrenchment and it confers on the workmen the minimal safeguard of the observance of