Termination of employment for unauthorized absence under Regulation 21 of the RSEB Employees Service Regulations, 1964, amounts to retrenchment and requires compliance with Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated February 24, 1986, by which the Award of the Labour Court, Jodhpur dated March 19, 1985 was up-held and the appellants' writ petition against it was dismissed.

2. Briefly recapitulated, the material facts are that the respondent R.D. Joshi was employed as an Upper Division Clerk since 1978 in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in brief the R.S.E.B.'), Pali. He was put under suspension on March 25, 1980 by the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B. Jodhpur on account of certain serious irregularities and misconduct. The Management decided to initiate a regular domestic inquiry against him. R.D. Joshi thereafter remained absent. On February 16, 1981, the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B., Jodhpur, by his order Annexure-6, terminated the services of R.D. Joshi. Thereafter R.D. Joshi raised an industrial dispute and the State Government made the following reference for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur:

"Whether the termination of the services of Shri R.D. Joshi by the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B., Jodhpur Circle, by his order dated February 16, 1981 is proper and valid? If not so, to what relief is the workman (R.D. Joshi) entitled?"
The learned Judge of the Labour Court, by his award Annexure-13 dated March 19, 1985, held that the termination of the services of R.D. Joshi was improper and invalid. The order Annexure-6 dated February 16, 1981) terminating the workman's services, was set-aside and he was reinstated with back wages, allowances and all other consequential benefits. The R.S.E.B. (in short 'the Board') challenged the Award by filing a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the writ and up-held the Award of the Labour Court. The Board has, now, come-up in special appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. O.S. Shishodia, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the respondent R.D. Joshi. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the case was heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

4. Mr. Shishodia raised the following three contentions before us in challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge:

(1) Regulation 21 of the R.S.E.B. Employees Service Regulations, 1964 was wrongly held as invalid and ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to Regulation 21 of the Regulations, 1964, if an incumbent absents himself for more than eight consecutive days without leave, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Board without notice, thereby terminating his contract of service. If the case of an incumbent falls within the four corners of Regulation 21, it cannot be deemed that he was retrenched. Retrenchment is not applicable to an incumbent whose services automatically stand terminated under Regulation 21;

(2) Order Annexure-6 (Order Annexure-5 is also a copy of it) was passed on the ground of misconduct of the incumbents by wilfully remaining absent from duty for more than eight days, it also amounted to misconduct on the incumbents part. The Board wanted to prove the charge and requested the Labour Court to permit it to lead evidence in proof of the charge. This request was turned down wrongly by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge left the point untouched and undiscussed; and

(3) the Award to reinstate the employee with back wages, allowances and benefits is wrong. R.D. Joshi was under suspension right from March 25, 1980 and continued to be under suspension when his services were terminated on February 16, 1981. In case the impugned order Annexure 6, terminating his services, is found invalid and improper, the position existing on February 16, 1981 will revive. The result would be that what he was getting on February 16, 1981 as subsistence allowance should alone be paid to h