M.S.LIBERHAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order of termination Annexure P-4 on the ground that the same is not an order of simplicitor retrenchment rather it is an order of removal from service for remaining absent from duty. It was passed without following the procedure for awarding the punishment. Otherwise too, keeping in view the seven years service of the petitioner from 1986 to 1993 punishment of termination of service is disproportionate to the misconduct attributed.
(2.) SKELETAL facts are that the petitioner joined the respondent's service for 89 days as work Munshi/clerk and later on, on September 5, 1986 was appointed as a T-Mate. In 1989, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor Grade-II. During this period, the petitioner being a divorcee and since she had to look after a six year old female child, applied for leave from time to time on various grounds and the same was granted as leave of the kind due. Reading of the order of alleged termination Annexure P-4 as well as the written statement to the effect that 'so keeping in view her gross-mis-conduct in remaining absent from the Office since May 12, 1993 to May 14, 1993 and in view of her past record of habitually remaining absent and not replying to the explanations issued by competent authority her services have rightly been retrenched by the appointing authority, Respondent No. 2 under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. "it is categorically discernible that the termination of the services of the petitioner by way of retrenchment does not fall within the definition of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which runs as under : "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. . . . " Reading of the order as well as the stand taken by the respondents, I am of the considered view that termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground of absence without leave does not amount to retrenchment simplicitor as absence without leave is a mis-conduct and the termination of her services on such ground without complying with the minimum principles of natural justice will not be justified. The petitioner has served the respondents almost for 7 years. The petitioner was appointed as- Work Munshi, then T. Mate and then to a higher post viz. Supervisor Grade II which is of higher responsibility. In view of appointment as Supervisor Grade-II any lapse on her part prior to the date of promotion cannot be taken note of while terminating her services for remaining absent without leave for two days and termination of services on account of absence for only two days will be totally disproportionate to the mis-conduct attributed to the petitioner. For my above view, I am supported by judgment reported in L. Robert D'souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, (1982-I-LLJ-330 ). In view of the observations made above, this writ petition is allowed, impugned order Annexure-4 is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to back wages and continuity of service. No order as to costs. .;