The scope and ambit of Section 2 (oo) relating to retrenchment is well explained in the case of Santosh Gupta vs. State Bank of Patiala (1980) Lab.I.C.687 SC), discuss.

Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines "retrenchment" as the termination of the service of a workman for any reason other than: voluntary retirement, superannuation, non-renewal of contract, continued ill-health. The scope and ambit of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to retrenchment is explained in the case of Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980) Lab.I.C.687 SC) , wherein it was held that if the definition of retrenchment is looked at unaided and unhampered by precedent, one is at once struck by the remarkably wide language employed and particularly the use of the word 'termination for any reason whatsoever'. If due weight is given to these words, i.e. they are to be understood as to mean what they plainly say, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that retrenchment must include every termination of service of a workman by an act of the employer. In the case of Punjab Land Development Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court, Chandigarh, (1990) II LLJ 70 SC , the Supreme Court held that expression "retrenchment" means termination by employer of services of workman for any reason whatsoever except those expressly excluded in the Section itself.