JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the award dated August 29, 1996 passed in Case No.CGIT/LC (R) (25)/1984 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short 'CGIT'). 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are thus: The petitioner union raised an industrial dispute in relation to workman Harihar S/o.Shyam Rao, DPR. working in Eklehra Colliery, whose services were terminated w.e.f. March 13, 1978 for over-staying the leave from November 2, 1977. According to the management the workman went on leave to his village who was to join his duties from November 2, 1977, but, he did not turn up till March 13, 1978, thereafter, his services came to an end automatically under Clause 19 of the Certified Standing Orders, which lays down that if a workman remains absent himself without any information to the Manager, for more than 30 days, his services will automatically stand terminated. The notice of automatic termination was sent to the workman, but, he did not turn up for a period of about 4 years and raised the belated industrial dispute through the petitioner union. In the written statement, it is also stated that remaining unauthorisedly absent amounts to major misconduct under Sub-clause 1(n) of Clause 18 which reads thus; "continuous absence without permission and without satisfactory cause for more than 10 days amounts to misconduct." Therefore, his services were terminated for misconduct vide order dated March 13, 1978), hence, the prayer was made in the written statement to afford an opportunity to the management to prove misconduct. The CGIT vide order dated February 10, 1986 (Annexure-H) held that the automatic termination of the petitioner under Clause 19 amounts to retrenchment and as the pre-requisites of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'} were not complied with, the order of termination is illegal and void. However, on the alternative plea raised by the management, the CGIT directed the management to lead evidence to prove misconduct. After recording the evidence the CGIT found the misconduct proved, therefore, maintained the order of termination of the workman. 3. However, on the alternative plea raised by the management, the CGIT directed the management to lead evidence to prove misconduct. After recording the evidence the CGIT found the misconduct proved, therefore, maintained the order of termination of the workman. 3. Shri S.K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the termination was under Clause 19 which is evident from the order itself, therefore, such termination amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act which cannot be effected without complying with the pre-requisite of Section 25F as has been held by the Supreme Court in Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 131 . Therefore, the CGIT on the plea raised in the written statement ought not to have directed the Management to adduce evidence to prove misconduct as the action was not for any misconduct, but, as taken under Clause 19 for overstay ing the leave. 4. Shri Rajendra Menon, learned counsel for the management contended that the workman was unauthorisedly absent, therefore, though the order of termination was under Clause 19, but, the management was well within its power to take action under Clause 18 for misconduct and therefore, the plea at the initial stage in the written statement was raised making a prayer that in case the order is found to be illegal, the Management be permitted to adduce evidence to prove misconduct. The misconduct havingbeen found proved of remaining unauthorisedly absent for more than 30 days, the CGIT rightly did not award any relief. This Court would not interfere with the finding recorded by the CGIT on the misconduct which has been justified by the management, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the CGIT acted illegally in permitting the management to prove the misconduct as on the face of the order, the management had taken action under Clause 19 for over-staying the leave for more than 30 days and the order passed in terms of Clause 19 was sent to the workman. In such circumstances, such a termination of service amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act and therefore the procedure under Section 25F of the Act which is mandatory ought to have been followed. In such circumstances, such a termination of service amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act and therefore the procedure under Section 25F of the Act which is mandatory ought to have been followed. That is what has been held by the Supreme Court in Ralston John's case (supra), hence, the award passed by the CGIT and the order of termination of service passed by the management terminating the services of the workman Harihar cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner and its workman raised dispute after about four years and which was dismissed by the CGIT, against which the petition filed in the year 1987 has come up for hearing before this Court today, I was inclined to grant compensation in lieu of relief of reinstatement as has been awarded by the Supreme Court in Rolston John '.v case (supra), but learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the workman is reinstated with continuity of service, the workman will get gratuity and other retiral benefits on his attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, this Court may direct reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. For this learned counsel for the management has also no objection. 6. In the circumstances, while quashing the award and the order of termination, I direct that the workman Harihar shall be reinstated on his post with continuity of service. He shall be enti tled to all consequential benefits except back- wages from the date of termination till order of reinstatement. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed, the award passed by the CGIT as well as the order of termination are quashed. The workman would be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 3,000 in the circumstances of the case.