Balakrishna Eradi, J:-The principal question arising for determination in this case is whether the termination of service of a casual labourer employed under the railway administration brought about by the operation of Rule 2505 of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual) by reason of his having absented himself constitutes 'retrenchment' so as to attract the provisions of S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), A Division Bench of this court, of which one of us (Eradi, J.) was a member by its order of reference dated 29th September, 1978 referred the case to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the matter.

'2. The writ petitioner was working as a casual employee under the Southern Railway Administration. According to the petitioner he had been continuously functioning as such from 1948 onwards but this is not admitted by the respondents. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the particulars furnished by the petitioner as to the various places where he worked during different periods. The petitioner has claimed in the original petition that he had acquired temporary status by reason of his having been i