YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SRI Ved Prakash Agrawal (Sri Agrawal) Joined U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, lucknow (the Corporation) sometime, in the year, 1973. His services wre terminated on 24. 8. 1976, w. e. f. 25. 3. 1976; he raised a labour dispute. In concilliation proceedings, the parties came to the terms and the order temination his services was cancelled on 17. 11. 1976. According to Sri Agrawal he went back to the Corporation on 24. 11. 1976, but was not taken back and he raised a labour dispute again. This dispute was referred to Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 14. 5. 1980 accepted the contention of the corporation that Sri Agarwal himself did not join his duties on his own accord. In view of this finding no relief was granted to him. It appears that subsequently Sri Agrawal did join duties sometimes in 1978 and the corporation permitted him to work. ( 2 ) SRI Agrawal continued in service of the Corporation and was charge sheeted on 9. 2. 1987, for misconduct (disobedience, insubordination, indiscipline, creeting nuisance and disturbing the workers while on duty ). An injury officer was appointed and he submitted his report on 2. 3. 1987. Service of Sri Agrawal were terminated on 3. 3. 1987 on the basis of inquiry report. He again raised a Labour dispute and this was referred to the Labour Court by the order dated 22. 2. 1988. The case was initially sent to Labour Court, Meerut for adjudication, thereafter it was transferred to some other Labour Courts and ultimately to the dustrial Tribunal-1, Allahabad (the tribunal ). This reference was allowed in favour of Sri Agrawal on 2. 5. 1999, and termination order was set aside on the finding that no retrenchment compensation was given to Sri Agrawal before terminating his services. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service with foil back wages and other benefits. ( 3 ) SRI Agrawal filed a Writ Petition No. 2667 of 2000 (the first writ petition)1 for-Quashing of the award dated 14. 5. 1980. Directing for his reinstatement from 25. 3. 1980; payment of interest on full back wages; and prosecution of employers and their Advocate under different Acts. ( 4 ) THE first writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 19. 1. 5. 1980. Directing for his reinstatement from 25. 3. 1980; payment of interest on full back wages; and prosecution of employers and their Advocate under different Acts. ( 4 ) THE first writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 19. 1. 2000 on the ground of latches and sri Agrawal filed an appeal before the Apex Court. During pendency of this appeal, the corporation also filed WP No. 9202 of 2000 (the second writ petition) challenging the award of the Tirbunal dated 2. 5. 1999. The corporation did not reinstate Sri Agrawal in pursuance of the award on the ground that the superannuated on 6. 1. 1996 during pendency of labour dispute, and thereafter interim orders were obtained from this Court in the second writ petition. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court allowed the appeal of Sri Agrawal on 16. 8. 2000 dismissing the first writ petition and remanded send the matter for redeeision on one question to consider whether Sri agrawal could be retired on 6. 1. 1996 or was he to be retired on any other date. This point was to be decided after affording opportunity to the parties concerned. The Apex Court while remanding the case also expressed at desire that the writ petition filed by sri Agrawal alongwith the writ petition filed by the corporation may be decided, if possible, within six months. They are being decided today. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION : ( 6 ) I have heard Sri Agrawal, in person and Sri S. S. Nigam, Counsel for the corporation. Following points arises for determination in this case : (i) The age of superannuation in the corporation in 60 years. According to the Corporation the date of birth of Sri Agrawal is 6. 1. 1938, whereas according to Sri Agrawal his date of birth is 16. 1. 1943. What is the correct date of birth of Sri Agrawal ? (ii) The Industrial Tribunal has set aside the order of termination on the ground that no retrenchment compensation was given. The services of Sri Agrawal were terminated after disciplinary inquiry. Was he entitled to any retrenchment compensation? Was it a case of retrenchment? Could the award be set aside on the ground that no retrenchment was given? 1st POINT : SRI AGRAWALs DATE OF BIRTH 6. 1. The services of Sri Agrawal were terminated after disciplinary inquiry. Was he entitled to any retrenchment compensation? Was it a case of retrenchment? Could the award be set aside on the ground that no retrenchment was given? 1st POINT : SRI AGRAWALs DATE OF BIRTH 6. 1. 1936 : ( 7 ) THERE is neither any relief nor any pleading in the first writ petition about date of birth or date of superannution. This queastion was neither raised nor argued when the first petition was decided earlier by the Single Judge. I proceed to decide it as the Apex Court has permitted it to be raised and the parties have also filed affidavits regarding date of birth. ( 8 ) THE corporation has filed following documents to show that date of birth of Sri Agrawal is 6. 1. 1936 : (i) Photostat copy of the application dated 13. 6. 1973 filed by Sri Agrawal for recruitment, (ii) The Photostat copy of the Form II declaring and nomination form regarding Employees provident Fund under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. (iii) Photostat copy of the Gazette dated 13. 9. 1952 in which High School result of Sri Agrawal was published, (iv) Copy of the written statement and affidavit filed by Sri Agrawal before Labour Court. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the corporation the first two documents are in the handwriting of Sri Agrawal. The Third document in public document in the first three documents, the date of birth of Sri agrawal is mentioned as 6. 1. 1936. The fourth document is the written statement and the affidavit filed by Sri Agrawal before Labour Court, Meerut in this labour dispute. It was filed on 9. 6. 1988. In this Sri Agrawal has shown his age to be 53 years. This indicates that according to sri Agrawal, himself, he was bom in 1935 and the date 6. 1. 1936 mentioned by the corporation is correct. ( 10 ) SRI Agrawal submitted that these documents are forged documents are and not correct ones. No documents have been filed by Sri Agrawal that his date of birth is 16. 1. 1943 and not 6. 1. 1986. There is nothing to show that documents filled by corporation are forged or the date of birth of Sri Agrawal is 16. 1. 1943 instead of 6. 1. 1936. No documents have been filed by Sri Agrawal that his date of birth is 16. 1. 1943 and not 6. 1. 1986. There is nothing to show that documents filled by corporation are forged or the date of birth of Sri Agrawal is 16. 1. 1943 instead of 6. 1. 1936. The first two documents filed by the corporation are photostat copies of the documents filed by Sri Agrawal himself. The third one is photostat copy of the Official Gazette. The fourth one is affidavit of Sri Agrawal which indicates that the date of birth as mentioned by the corporation is correct. In these circumstances, 1 have no reason to doubt that date of birth of Sri Agrawal is 6. 1. 1936 and not 16. 1. 1943. If services of sri Agrawal were not terminated then he would have retired on 6. 1. 1996. This point is decided against Sri Agrawal. 2nd POINT : THE AWARD IS ILLEGAL : ( 11 ) SRI Agrawal was given a charge sheet on 9. 2. 1987. An inquiry report was submitted against him and his services were terminated on 3. 3. 1987 as punishment by way of disciplinary action. This fact has been stated in the written statement filed by the Corporation before the Labour count. In paragraphs 13-A and 13-B of the second writ petition, it has been specifically stated that copies of charge sheet explanation given by Sri Agrawal, inquiry proceedings were brought on record before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also framed following two issues on 15. 12. 1991 : (i) Whether the enquiry conducted in the matter was fair and proper? (ii) If the reply if issue No. 1 is in negative whether unit-Rohanakalan can be permitted to prove the charges. The Paragraphs numbers 13-A and 13-B of the second writ petition are not denied. The Tribunal has not decided these questions, but has held that termination order is illegal as no retrenchment compensation was given. This could not be done because if the case of the corporation is correct then there was no retrenchment ( 12 ) RETRENCHMENT is defined under Section 2 (s) of UP Industrial Disputes Act (the Act ). It means termination of employment of services of workmen on any reason whatsoever otherwise than on basis of discipline proceedings. This could not be done because if the case of the corporation is correct then there was no retrenchment ( 12 ) RETRENCHMENT is defined under Section 2 (s) of UP Industrial Disputes Act (the Act ). It means termination of employment of services of workmen on any reason whatsoever otherwise than on basis of discipline proceedings. According to the Corporation services of the petitioner were terminated by means of disciplinary proceedings after holding inquiry. Two issues in (paragraph no. 11) were also framed. The Tribunal ought to have decided these issues and thereafter the labour dispute in its light. In case inquiry was illegal then termination order could be held to be illegal after giving opportunities to the co-operation to lead evidence (in case it was so entitled)but the termination order could not be set aside on the ground that no retrenchment compensation was paid. The Tribunal not decided the question regarding validity of the inquiry, the award of the Tribunal is illegal. CONCLUSION ( 13 ) IN view of above the writ petition No. 2667 of 2000 (the first writ petition) is dismissed; the writ petition No. 9202 of 2000 (the second writ petition) is allowed. ( 14 ) THE award of tribunal dated 2. 5. 1999 is illegal and is set aside. The parties may appear before the Tribunal on 26. 3. 2001. The Tribunal may decide the dispute expedition sly on merit, if possible within four months. . .