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 in continuous employment as 'casual labour' for more than six months in the same work or type of work. This contention is refuted by the respondents according to whom the employment of the petitioner was throughout only as casual labour on projects and hence the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit of the temporary status. During the year 1974 when the petitioner was working as a Lascar attached to the Assistant Engineer's office at Ernakulam he absented himself from duty continuously for about two weeks from 16-9-1974 onwards. It would appear that the petitioner was at that time the General Secretary of the Southern Railway Construction Workers' Union and that in protest against the alleged inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government in dealing with the Union's request for reference of a dispute for industrial adjudication the petitioner had gone on fast-in front of the office of the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Ernakulam from 16-9-1974 onwards. According to the averments in the original petition the petitioner broke his fast on 28-9-1974 as a result of the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter he reported for duty before the Assistant Engineer on 30-9-1974 and filed a joining report, a copy of which is produced with the writ petition and marked as Ext. P10. It is alleged in the writ petition that from 30-9-1974 the petitioner was actually wonting in the office of the Assistant Engineer till 8-10-1974 on which date he was served with the order Ext. PH Issued by the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway Ernakulam (1st respondent) which is in the following terms:

'You have absented yourself unauthorisedly from 18-9-74 and hence your services are deemed to have been terminated from the day you have absented yourself. Please note.

2. Since you are no longer, on the rolls of this office, you should vacate the quarters allotted to you immediately, failing which action will be taken to evict you.'

Immediately on being served with the order Ext. P11 the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the said order and praying for a declaration that has continues in the employment of the railway without any break in service. The grounds raised in the writ petition in support of the challenge against Ext. PH are that the said order of termination, coming as it did in the background of the facts and circumstances narrated in the original petition, is clearly an act of victimisation for the petitioner's trade union activities and it is a mire colourable exercise of the respondent's power under the provisions of the Manual. It is further contended that the impugned order is ex facie punitive and in as much as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain why he was abse