Retrenchment by striking off the rolls requires strict statutory compliance; reinstatement was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

A challenge to the industrial dispute reference and to section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act failed because the objection lacked factual foundation, and the Article 14 attack was barred by an earlier ruling upholding the reference provisions. The workman's striking off the rolls was treated as termination of service amounting to retrenchment, and the standing order basis also failed because the required period of continuous absence had not elapsed. As the mandatory conditions for retrenchment under section 25F were not met, and no jurisdictional or legal error justified interference, the award of reinstatement was upheld and the employer's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the industrial dispute reference and to the validity of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act could be entertained, including the objection based on Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the workman's removal from the rolls amounted to invalid retrenchment and whether the award of reinstatement was liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the industrial dispute reference and to the validity of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act could be entertained, including the objection based on Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The objection that the dispute was not properly espoused and that section 2A was ultra vires lacked the necessary factual foundation in the record. The Court also held that the Article 14 challenge was concluded by the earlier decision upholding the validity of the relevant reference provisions against an equality attack. A new ground could not be used to reopen that settled legal position.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reference and the constitutional objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the workman's removal from the rolls amounted to invalid retrenchment and whether the award of reinstatement was liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order striking off the workman's name was found untenable even on the standing orders, because the requisite period of continuous absence had not elapsed. The Court further held that striking the name off the rolls was termination of service amounting to retrenchment, and the mandatory requirements for retrenchment under section 25F had not been complied with. No manifest error of law or jurisdictional defect was shown in the Labour Court's award, so interference under Article 226 was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The removal was invalid retrenchment and the award of reinstatement was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The award in favour of the workman stood affirmed, and the employer's challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A termination by striking a workman off the rolls amounts to retrenchment, and it is invalid unless the mandatory statutory conditions precedent for retrenchment are satisfied; a settled constitutional challenge cannot be reopened on a new ground without an adequate factual basis in the record.

---