Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Award dated 2.3.93 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition, by which the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with consequential benefits and held that the Jain Swetamber Nakoda Parshwanath Tirth, Mewa Nagar, district Barmer, is not an `industry and petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the employment. (2). The petitioner had alleged that he was appointed as a Chowkidar on 19.6.1980 and worked continuously upto 2.11.85 with the respondent No. 1 and his services had been terminated orally without any reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ``the Act). As the conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate government made a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labor Court on the issue: whether the retrenchment/termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 2.11.85 was valid and legal, if no, to what relief he was entitled to ? Petitioner filed the claim petition before the Labour Court making the averments as mentio- ned above. Counter claim was filed by the respondents taking specific pleas that the establishment was not an industry and petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the service and when he did not turn-up, his name was removed from register on 17.1.86 and before doing that the Manager of the respondent establishment had sent registered letters/notices to the petitioner and the receipt of the post officer were, also, produced. Respondent No.1 had sent a registered letter dated 2.11.1985, which was received back by the respondents with an endorsement that addressee had gone out. The Petitioner admitted before the Labour Court that he had received the letter dated 2.12.85 sent by the respondent establishment but he did not submit any reply in response to the same. The petitioner further admitted the receipt of two registered letters sent to him subsequently. (3). The Labour Court considered the evidence on record and the legal submissions made by the parties and recorded the finding of fact that as the petitioner himself had admitted the receipt of two registered letter and,also, the letter dated 2.12.85, there was no occasion for the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner orally and it was a clear case of voluntarily abandonment of service by him. The Court further held that the respondent establishment was not an ``industry within the meaning of provisions of the Act. (4). Heard Mr. D.K. Parihar, and Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, learned counsel for the parties. (5). Shri Parihar has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the respondent establishment is not an ``industry.. It has been submitted that the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, does not provide exemption to Dharamshalas run on charitable basis rather it dealt with opening and closing hours of an establishment and weekly holidays. The contention has been that in view of this exemption for the limited purpose, it cannot be said that the said Dharamshala is not an industry within the meaning of the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act. (6). In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to determine the issue whether respondent establishment is an industry of not. The petitioner remained absent for seventy-five days on his own sweet will for the reason of his transfer from one place to another and he did not join at the place where he was transferred as it had not been the case of the petitioner that he went to take charge at the transferred place and was not allowed to work there. It has vehemently been submitted by Mr. Parihar that even if a workman/employee remains absent for unreasonably long period, i.e. for more than a decade, still in that eventuality the employer cannot terminate his services without holding enquiry. The submission is preposterous. (7). In M/s. Jeewan Lal Ltd., Calcutta vs. its workman (1), the Apex Court has held as under :- ``.....if an employee continues to be absent from duty without obtaining leave and in an unauthorised manner for such a long period of time that an inference may reasonably be drawn from such absence that by his absence he has abandoned service, then such long unau- thorised absence may legitimately be held to cast a break in continuity of service..... We would like to make it clear that..... there would be the class of cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee. (8). We would like to make it clear that..... there would be the class of cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee. (8). Similarly, in Shahoordul Haque vs. the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar and another (2), the Apex Court has observed as under : ``The undenied and undeniable fact that the appellant had actually abandoned his post or duty for an acceedingly long period, without sufficient ground for his absence, is so glaring that giving him further opportunity to dis-prove what he practically admits, could serve no useful purpose. It could not benefit him or make any difference to the order which could be and has been passed against him..... On the view we have adopted on the facts of this case, it is not necessary to consider the further question whether any notice for termination of service was necessary or duly given on the assumption that he was not punished. We do not think that there is any question involved in this case which could justify an interference by us..... (9). As the petitioner himself has voluntarily abandoned the service, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Labour Court that his services were not terminated and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not attracted. (10). For the purpose of retrenchment/termination, there has to be positive action on the part of the employer while abandonment of service is a consequence of unilateral action of the employee and the employer has no role in it. (11). ``Retrenchment is defined in Section 2 (00) of the Act as under :- ``Retrenchment means termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever, other than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. (12). Thus, from the aforesaid definition, it is abundantly clear that ``retrench- ment means termination of service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever. If the termination is by way of punishment as a consequence of a disciplinary action, it would not amount to retrenchment. (12). Thus, from the aforesaid definition, it is abundantly clear that ``retrench- ment means termination of service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever. If the termination is by way of punishment as a consequence of a disciplinary action, it would not amount to retrenchment. In a case where the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court is that the workman himself has voluntarily abandoned the service, the provisions of the Act cannot be made appli- cable because abandonment of service, even by no stretch of imagination, can be brought within the ambit of retrenchment. The establishment has removed the name of the workman from the Register of the Employees after being satisfied that he had abandoned his services and cannot be termed as ``termination. (13). The ratio of judgments in Punjab Land Development Area Reclaimation Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. (3); and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Maluamra (4), referred to and relief upon by Mr. Parihar is not applicable in the instant case. Similarly the judgments relied upon by Mr. Parihar in the cases of D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (5); Scooters India vs. Vijay E.V. Eldred (6) and Uptron India Ltd. vs. Smt. Shammi Bhan (7), are of no assistance in the instance case for the reason that those are the cases where the Honble Apex Court has laid down that where the rule provided that the services of an employee, who over-stays the leave, would be treated to have been automatically terminated, would be bad being violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and if any action has been taken on the basis of such a rule, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee, it would be wholly unjust, arbitrary and unfair for the reason that the principles of natural justice would have to be read into the provisions relating to automatic termination of the service. (14). The instant is not a case of ``automatic termination of the service on happening of a particular event, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the said judgments. Mr. (14). The instant is not a case of ``automatic termination of the service on happening of a particular event, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the said judgments. Mr. Parihar has not agitated the issue that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse or not base on any evidence, or is contrary to the evidence adduced before the Court, or is based on some extraneous consideration, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Labour Court that petitioners services were not terminated, rather he himself had voluntarily aban- doned it. (15). The petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.