Retrenchment principles bar summary termination for unauthorised absence where statutory safeguards and service rules are not followed.

Termination of a railway workman's service for unauthorised absence was treated as retrenchment because "termination of service for any reason whatsoever" was read broadly, subject only to express exceptions. The employer's failure to comply with the mandatory conditions for retrenchment under section 25F rendered the termination invalid, and the notice regime under section 9A was held irrelevant to such retrenchment. The workman was also found to have acquired temporary railway servant status under the Railway Establishment Manual through long continuous service, so summary termination without the prescribed procedure was void and inoperative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deemed termination of a railway workman's service for unauthorised absence amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was invalid for non-compliance with section 25F; (ii) Whether the workman had acquired the status of a temporary railway servant under the Railway Establishment Manual so that termination without the prescribed procedure was void.

Issue (i): Whether the deemed termination of a railway workman's service for unauthorised absence amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was invalid for non-compliance with section 25F.

Analysis: The expression "termination of service for any reason whatsoever" was applied in its settled and expansive sense, covering all terminations except the expressly excepted categories. Striking a workman's name off the rolls and deeming service terminated for absence was treated as retrenchment. The statutory conditions for valid retrenchment under section 25F were not complied with, and the notice regime under section 9A was held irrelevant because retrenchment is not a change in conditions of service under the Fourth Schedule.

Conclusion: The termination constituted retrenchment and was invalid for failure to satisfy section 25F.

Issue (ii): Whether the workman had acquired the status of a temporary railway servant under the Railway Establishment Manual so that termination without the prescribed procedure was void.

Analysis: Continuous service for many years, repeated transfers, and the employer's own records showing long uninterrupted engagement demonstrated that the workman could not be treated as mere casual labour. The Manual contemplated that casual labour rendering six months' continuous service would acquire temporary status, and casual labour could not be deliberately kept in that category indefinitely. Once temporary status was acquired, termination had to follow the prescribed rules and could not be effected summarily for absence without observance of the required procedure and minimum fairness.

Conclusion: The workman had acquired temporary status, and the termination was void and inoperative.

Final Conclusion: The termination order could not be sustained either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the Railway Establishment Manual, and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Termination of service for any reason whatsoever, including deemed termination for absence and striking off the rolls, amounts to retrenchment unless it falls within an express exception, and statutory service rules cannot override the mandatory safeguards for retrenchment or permit summary termination in breach of prescribed procedure.

---