(1) THIS appeal is directed against an order made by the High Court affirming an award made in a reference to Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the question whether the original Appellants services (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) have been properly terminated or not and to what relief he is entitled to. (2) THE Tribunal in the first place found that the case of the management is that there is abandonment of services by the Appellant and the reference being only on the question of termination of services that aspect could not be examined. It is also further noticed that onan earlier occasion parties had settled the matter by referring the matter to Screening Committee and the Screening Committee having given its decision on 21-6-1976 and the Government having declined to make the reference,before initiating fresh proceedings notices should have been given to the respondent-Mill. (3) WE have been taken through the award made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal approached the matter in very technical way. The substance of the reference made to the Tribunal was in regard to putting an end to the services of the appellant and the scope of reference should have been understood in that light as to whether the termination of services of the appellant was justified or not. Indeed the law is clear on the matter whenever the service of an employee is put to an end to even on the ground of abandonment of service it must be in terms of the standing orders and in the present case there is no compliance with the terms of the standing orders. The appellant was absent from work on account of his being detained by the Police from 9-9-1970 to 16-1-1971 when he was enlarged on bail. (4) THEREFORE, there is no abandonment of service in any manner and in those circumstances the relevant standing order in this regard could not have been invoked. That case putforth by the appellant should have been accepted by the Tribunal. Instead it proceeded to consider the technical aspect as stated by us earlier. (4) THEREFORE, there is no abandonment of service in any manner and in those circumstances the relevant standing order in this regard could not have been invoked. That case putforth by the appellant should have been accepted by the Tribunal. Instead it proceeded to consider the technical aspect as stated by us earlier. (5) SO far as the question of the Government not having issued notice to the respondent-Mill before making a reference, it is clear from the settlement reached between the parties earlier that in the event pursuant to the decision of the Screening committee if no agreement is reached between the parties it is open to the concerned party to raise an industrial dispute. If that is so we fail to understand as to how that aspect can come in the way of the appellant approaching the Government for making a reference to the Tribunal.In the circumstances both the grounds stated by the Tribunal to reject the reference are not justified. (6) SO far as the question relating to abandonment of service is concerned the Tribunal has not dealt with the matter at all on the ground that scope of reference was only limited to termination of services and not in relation to abandonment of, service. As explained by us earlier that reference includes this aspect also. In the circumstances we find there was justification for the Tribunal to have directed the restoration of service of the appellant. The appellant died during pendency of the proceedings. If he had been reinstated in service from 1971 the respondent-Mill having been closed w.e.f. 3-6-1984 all that he would have been entitled to is for wages for 1971 to 3-6-1984 and certain terminal benefits. It is stated that he was drawing wages @ Rs. 225 per month.Reckoning on that basis we find that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation to the Lrs. of the appellant who are before this Court in full and final settlement of claims so far as the appellant is concerned which shall be payable to the wife of the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed.