JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:—Appellant L. Robert DSouza joined service As a gangman at Mangalapuram in Southern Railway on July 1, 1948. In course of his service he was transferred to various places. When he was last working as Lascar at Ernakulam, on Oct. 8, 1974 the Executive Engineer (Construction), Ernakulam intimated to him that his services were deemed to have been terminated from Sept. 18, 1974, from which date the appellant was said to have absented himself from duty. This letter has an important bearing on the issues raised in this appeal, and, therefore, relevant portion may be extracted here :

"You have absented yourself unauthorisedly from 18-9-1974 and hence your services are deemed to have been terminated from, the day you have absented yourself. Please note.

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."

According to the appellant, up to the date of authorised and illegal termination of his service he had rendered continuous service for a period of 26 years yet the Railway administration wrongfully denied him the status of a temporary and/or regular workman and treated him a daily rated casual labourer. This treatment according to the appellant was so unfair that it prompted persons who were victims of this unfair treatment by the Railway administration to form a Union named Southern Railway Construction Workers Union, Ernakulam, of which the appellant was the General Secretary. The Union submitted a charter of demands which presumably irritated the authorities and chagrined by it, the appellant was transferred to Padannur in Tamil Nadu by way of punishment. As the late Shri A. K. Gopalan, who was a renowned trade union leader, espoused the cause of the appellant his transfer was cancelled and he was reposted and allowed to continue at Ernakulam after paying the arrears of wages and granting continuity of service for the period he did not join duty at the place of his transfer. This is quite evident from the letter of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, dated April 23, 1974, which reads as under :

"With reference to your letter dated the 28th May, 1973, on the above subject, I am directed to say that it has been reported by the Ministry of Railways that the Southern Railway Administration has been advised that as you were transferred back to Ernakulam on 19th March, 1971, you should be deemed to have been on duty for the intervening period from 8th March, 1970 to 19th Feb., 1971, and your wages paid accordingly."

2. The local superiors of the appellant were annoyed by the success of the appellant and they were on a look out for settling the score with the appellant. In the meantime the appellant approached the Labour Court for recovering some of his dues which remained pending for a long time. As the appellant and those similarly situated were likely to reach the age of superannuation and by the unfair labour practice of the Railway administration they were likely to be denied the full retirement benefits, appellant and several others filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. According to the appellant, for the various reasons stated in the petition, appellant and those similarly situated could not be treated as daily rated casual labour and under the relevant rules appellant and his co-workers would at least acquire the status of temporary railway servants and their services could not be terminated in the manner in which the appellants service was terminated and that they would be entitled to all the retiral benefits. The petition came up before a learned single Judge who dismissed the same. The matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench. In the appeal it was contended that the termination of service of the appellant in the circumstances as set out earlier would constitute retrenchment within the meaning of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short), and therefore, the o