Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The case of the workman is that he was on medical leave with ef

"Retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include: (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) 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; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. Thus, the definition contemplates following requirements for retrenchment: (i) There should be termination of the service of the workman. (ii) The termination should be by the employer. (iii) The termination is not the result of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. (iv) The definition excludes termination of service on the specified grounds or instances mentioned in it. [Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947] Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Perusal of the said Sections clearly reveals that striking off the name of the workman is not covered in any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2(oo) and therefore, it amounts to retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the company had not complied with the provisions of Section 25F before issuing order of termination. So far as the misconduct under Clause 24(f) of the Standing Orders is concerned, even before issuing an order of termination for habitual absence under Clause 24(f) of the Standing Orders, the company ought to have given the workman an opportunity of defending himself and for the purpose, the Show Cause Notice ought to have been issued to him and thereafter an inquiry was to be held to prove habitual absence. In the present case, the workman was arrested by the police and was in police custody from 2nd October, 2018 to 13th October, 2018 and as such, it was beyond his control to work during the said period. Immediately on his release, he had reported to work and had informed his superior officers about his detention. [Shri Maruti Bhanudas Kamble vs M/S.Bajaj Auto Ltd on 25 June, 2009] The definition of retrenchment is very clear and it excludes termination on disciplinary grounds among others the words 'for any reason whatsoever' occurring in Section 2(oo) are very wide and almost admitting of no exception. The striking of the name of workman from the muster roll does amount to retrenchment in the instant case, as it was unclear, as to whether on disciplinary grounds or not. Hence, the striking of the name of the workman from the muster roll in this case amounts to illegal retrenchment as per provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was not complied with by the company. (SBI Vs Sundarmany (AIR 1976 SC 11)