I.S Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner impugne the order of the Labour Court dated May 13, 1985 (Annexure P.6) whereby the termination of his services by respondent No. 2, i.e., Guru Harsahai Cooperative Marketing cum-Processing Society has been upheld. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's services were terminated vide Resolution No. 4 dated Nov. 3, 1977 passed by the Society and it reads as follows:- "4. Report of the Manager regarding business of the Society; The Manager has reported that there has been a considerable decrease in the work load of the Society and a large number of staff is without work. This is an unnecessary burden on the Society. Therefore, the junior-moat employee should begin to be retrenched. Accordingly, Shri Mangal Singh the junior-most employee of the Society be removed from the service from 4-11-1977. Agreed upon. The Manager should issue orders of the decision arrived at. Sd/- Bishan Singh, Case referred:- Administrator 3-11-1977." Since the petitioner did not accept the validity of this termination or retrenchment, he sought a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and as a result thereof, as already indicate, order Annexure P.6 was passed. While upholding that termination the Labour Court has held under issue No. 2 that the petitioner was rightly held guilty of having committed some embezzlement and, therefore, the termination of his services was well. The learned counsel for the Society, however, concedes that no such plea had been taken by the Society in its reply to the statement of claims filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court nor the impugned resolution terminating the services of the petitioner, which has been reproduced above, was passed on that basis. It is thus apparent that the Labour Court while upholding the termination of the petitioner's services, has relied on totally irrelevant considerations. The ground for the termination, as is well indicated by the contents of the resolution referred to above was that the petitioner was a surplusage and he being the junior-most, his his services were terminated. No such factual position has been established before the Labour Court. In view of this it is difficult to sustain the impugned order of the Labour Court, Annexure P.6. The same is set aside. The matter is sent back to the said Court with the direction to go into the matter afresh in accordance with the pleadings of the parties. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the said Court on Sept. 15, 1986. Order accordingly.;