Termination of service without just cause and without following the principles of natural justice amounts to retrenchment and is illegal.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. M/s. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd., hereinafter described as the petitioner, seeks quashing of the award passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, dated 27.9.1996. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Labour Court held that respondent No. 2 workman had not abandoned the service. There was no justification for terminating, his services and he was entitled to reinstatement with 50% hack wages.

2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-workman had joined the petitioner company on 1.12.1977 as a fitter. A labour dispute was raised by the workman alleging that on 7.6.1986 he was implicated in a criminal case. He could not go to the factory to attend his duty. He sent one leave application on 7.6.1986 and another leave application on 11.6.1986 through one co-worker Udaivir Singh. Udaivir Singh is the neighbourer of the respondent-workman. On 12.6.1996 the workman was arrested and was released on bail on 11.8.1986. During this period of his arrest, he had instructed his lawyer Sh. Sanjeev Rao for supplying information of his arrest to the management. His counsel had intimated the management. After he was admitted to bail, he came to the factory on 12.8.1986. After explaining the circumstances which had led to his absence, he requested for permission to join duty but was refused. He served the management with a demand notice seeking reinstatement.

3. The petitioner management contested the claim. It was asserted that the workman absented w.e.f. 7.6.1986. A telegram was sent to the workman to join duty by 19.6.1986. No intimation was received from the workman. As per Certified Standing Order governing the service conditions of the workman, he lost his lien. He had voluntarily left the service.

4. The learned Labour Court framed the issues and recorded evidence. On appraisal of the same, it was held that the workman had been arrested and, therefore, there was just ground for his absence from duty. H& had intimated the management about his arrest. Consequently, the services of the workman could not be terminated. With these basic findings, the impugned order was passed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the award of the Labour Court alleging that, as per Certified Standing Order, once the workman was absent without permission, the management was justified in terminating his services. Strong reliance was placed on Clause 7(E) of the Certified Standing Order.

6. On the contrary, argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-workman was that there was just ground for absence of the workman who absented having been arrested in a criminal case. Termination of his services under the peculiar facts tantamount to retrenchment.

7. Clause 7(E) of the Certified Standing Order reads as under :

"7(E) If a workman remains absent without leave or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall be liable to lose his lien on the appointment he holds unless (i) he reports for duty within 10 days of the expiry of the leave and (ii) gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the Factory Manager of his inability to return to work on the expiry of leave granted or extended as the case may be. Till such time, the explanation has been accepted, he will be treated on leave without pay. Such explanation shall be decided within a week of its receipt."

8. It is this clause which, as referred to above, has been pressed into service because it was urged that in terms of the plain language of Clause 7 (E) of the Certified Standing Order the workman did not report for duty within 10 days of the expiry of leave nor there was any explanation that was forthcoming.

9. In support of his claim, the learned counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd., Jaipur v. Hanuman 1967(H) Labour Law Journal 883. In the cited case also there was a Certified Standing Order. It provided that the workman would Jose his job in case