Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

man; (iii) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; (iv) or termination of the service on the ground of continued ill-health. Once the case does not fall in any of the excepted categories the termination of service even if it be according to automatic discharge from service under agreement would nonetheless be retrenchment within the meaning of expression in s. 2(oo). It must as a corollary follow that if the name of the workman is struck off the roll that itself would constitute retrenchment, as held by this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. case. We specifically refer to this case because the facts in the case before us are on all fours with the facts in the aforementioned cases and on parity of reasoning and judicial comity the same conclusion must follow unless something to the contrary is indicated. In that case respondent S. N. Mukherji who was recruited as a labourer came to be promoted in course of time to the post of Motion Setter. On October 1, 1964, pursuant to some re-organisation in the establishment the post of Motion Setter was abolished. The management offered employment to the respondent S. N. Mukherji on any other suitable post, which was indicated to be the post of Assistant Line Fixer (Assistant Grade I) without loss of wages. He was to be on probation. The management found him unsuitable for this post even after extending the period of probation by 9 months and therefore offered him post of Fitter on the same pay which he, as a Motion Setter, used to get. The response of S. N. Mukherji to this offer was that he should be given a further opportunity to show his efficiency in his job and if he fails to improve, he would tender his resignation voluntarily. The management did not reply to the letter with the result that the workman did not report for work at the newly offered post. On January 19, 1966, the management wrote to the workman that his name has been struck off from the rolls with effect from August 24, 1965, for continued absence without intimation. Such termination of service was held to be covered by the expression 'retrenchment' and it was struck down on the ground that the pre-condition to valid retrenchment was not complied with. It would thus appear that it is consistently held by this Court that termination of service for any reason whatsoever except the excepted categories would constitute retrenchment within the meaning of the expression in the Act. And here recall the order of termination of service of the appellant wherein it is stated that "You have absented yourself unauthorisedly from 19.8.1974 and hence your services are deemed to have been terminated from the day you have absented yourself." Is any other conclusion possible save and except the one recorded by this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd case that this constitutes retrenchment and for non-compliance with pre- condition, it is invalid.