Retrenchment under industrial law includes employer-initiated termination unless expressly excluded; confirmation-test failure triggered statutory protection.

Termination of a workman's service for failure to pass a confirmation test was held to be retrenchment under section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, because the term was construed in its plain, comprehensive sense to include termination by the employer for any reason unless expressly excluded. The statutory scheme, including sections 25FF and 25FFF, was treated as confirming that employer-initiated termination falls within retrenchment unless it comes within a specific exception. On that construction, section 25F applied, and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

---

---

Issues: Whether termination of a workman's services on the ground that she did not pass the confirmation test amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether section 25F of that Act was therefore attracted.

Analysis: The expression "retrenchment" in section 2(oo) was construed in its plain and comprehensive sense as covering termination by the employer for any reason whatsoever, subject only to the express exclusions in the definition. The Court held that the legislative scheme, including sections 25FF and 25FFF, showed that termination of service by act of the employer was intended to fall within retrenchment unless specifically excluded. The earlier decisions on surplus labour and closure were distinguished, and the view of several High Courts taking a narrower meaning was rejected.

Conclusion: The termination was retrenchment within section 2(oo), section 25F applied, and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

---