ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition the State of U. P. has challenged the Award of the labour Court, U. P. , Allahabad, dated 27. 4. 1995 in Adjudication case no. 108 of 1990. The fact is that several adjudication cases were made by different workmen before the Labour Court but the facts of the above Adjudication case are picked up in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) IT is an admitted case that the concerned workman, respondent No. 2, had worked with the petitioner from 1982 to 1989. Thereafter his services were terminated. It is also admitted and not disputed by the petitioner that before terminating the services of the workman concerned neither any notice had been given on him nor the provisions of section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the Barage system, where the workman was employed, has since been shifted from Allahabad to Mirzapur, no work remained at Allahabad. Therefore, all the workmen, including the respondent No. 2, were transferred to Mirzapur and asked to report there. Since they have not reported at Mirzapur their services were terminated. In this view of the matter the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his is not a case covered by the definition of expression retrenchment in Section 6-N and, therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the employer to comply with the provisions of section 6-N of the Act. In fact, the employer has not terminated their services, as alleged, but these workman are not reporting for duty at mirzapur. Therefore, it is not a case of retrenchment. ( 4 ) SO far as the cessation/ abandonment law relating retrenchment is concerned, it is clear from a series of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court that cessation of an employment for whatsoever reason amounts to retrenchment and the least that is required from the employer is to comply with the provisions of section 6-N of the Act (see: (1982) 1 Supreme Court cases 645, L. Robert D Souza Vs. Executive Engineer. Southern Railway and another ). Executive Engineer. Southern Railway and another ). ( 5 ) IN view of the law aforesaid laid down by the Apex Court the action of the petitioner in not paying the wages to the respondent No. 2- workman amounts to retrenchment. Thus the Reference has been rightly answered in favour of the workman by the Labour Court. The award does not require any direction from this Court. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. .