JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant writ petition the petitioner (for short the 'employer') seeks to assail the award dated February 2, 1994 of the Judge Labour Court Jaipur whereby the reference made to it was answered and it was held that the removal of respondent workman (hereinafter described as 'workman') w.e.f. August 20, 1983 was bad in law and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. 2. The workman was temporarily appointed by the employer on May 25, 1970. The workman submitted an application for headquarter leave from April 9, 1983 to April 10, 1983, which was sanctioned. After proceeding on leave the workman neither reported on duty nor submitted any application for extension of leave on April 11, 1983. The workman continuously remained absent from duty w.e.f. April 11, 1983 without permission and without submitting any application in regard to his absence. In view thereof a registered letter No. 2114 dated April 28, 1983 was sent by the employer to the workman at his permanent address, wherein it was stated that since the workman was availing the leave voluntarily, his act came under indiscipline, and the workman was called to explain his conduct. The workman neither reported back on duty nor gave any explanation, Again show case notice dated May 30, 1983 was issued by the employer to the workman by registered post asking the workman to show cause as to why the proceedings be not initiated against him as per the provisions of clause (xiii) (a) &, b) of Regulation 9 of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1974 (for short 'Regulations'). The workman was asked to submit his reply by June 7, 1983 and immediately to report on duty. The registered notice was sent to workman at his two addresses, available with the employer in its record. The registered notice was received on behalf of the workman by Smt. Krishna Kumari, but the workman neither reported on duty nor submitted any explanation. On June 23, 1983 again show cause notice was issued to the workman as to why his services be not terminated in terms of the provisions of Regulations for having remained voluntarily absent from duty continuously from April 11, 1983. On June 23, 1983 again show cause notice was issued to the workman as to why his services be not terminated in terms of the provisions of Regulations for having remained voluntarily absent from duty continuously from April 11, 1983. The workman was asked to submit his reply by June 20, 1983, failing which it was stated that the proceedings as per the provisions of the Regulations shall be taken against him. The workman did not give any explanation in response to the aforesaid notices, therefore a notice was published in daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika on July 1, 1983 requiring the workman to join his duties by July 5, 1983, failing which it had to be construed that he was not interested in working with the employer and that orders of termination of his service would be issued. The employer thereafter issued order dated August 20, 1983 in respect of voluntary retirement of workman with immediate effect in terms of the notice published in the daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika and as per provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (xii) of Regulation 9 of the Regulations. 3. The dispute was raised by the workman against the employer. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(e) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') referred the matter to the Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication vide order dated July 17, 1990. 4. The workman filed statement of claim before the Labour Court. The employer submitted reply. The workman filed his affidavit, on which the representative of the employer cross-examined him. On behalf of the employer counter affidavit was filed by K.K. Sisodia, on which the representative of the workman cross-examined him. Thereafter learned Labour Court after hearing the final submissions passed the impugned award. 5. I have heard the submissions advanced before me and scanned the material on record. 6. It is contended on behalf of the employer that the order dated August 20, 1983 was passed in terms of the Regulation 9 (xiii)(a) of the Regulations, validity of which has not been assailed by the workman. In view of the said Regulation the impugned award could not have been passed. 6. It is contended on behalf of the employer that the order dated August 20, 1983 was passed in terms of the Regulation 9 (xiii)(a) of the Regulations, validity of which has not been assailed by the workman. In view of the said Regulation the impugned award could not have been passed. It is further contended that from the material on record it was established that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the services and he was not interested in working with the employer. Learned Labour Court has thus committed illegality in not appreciating the order passed on August 20, 1983. 7. Supporting the impugned award, learned counsel for the workman, contended that overstaying of leave period by employee without proper explanation amounts to retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act and enquiry was necessary before terminating the services of the workman. Reliance is placed-on Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ( AIR 1994 SC 131 ). 8. As per Section 2(oo) of the Act the 'retrenchment' means termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include:- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. 9. Having analysed the material on record, I am of the view that the instant case is not a case of overstaying of leave period by workman without proper explanation. As already noticed the employer provided reasonable opportunity to the workman and persuaded him to join the duties. The workman was required to give explanation, but neither he submitted reply not he joined the duties. In my opinion the order dated August 20, 1983, whereby the workman was treated having voluntarily retired from the service, was not properly appreciated by the learned Labour Judge. According to the Regulation 9 (xiii) (a) of the Regulations a workman who absented himself without leave for seven continuous days or absented himself after the expiry of the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended shall cease to be in the employment of the employer unless he submits satisfactory explanation for his absence. According to the Regulation 9 (xiii) (a) of the Regulations a workman who absented himself without leave for seven continuous days or absented himself after the expiry of the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended shall cease to be in the employment of the employer unless he submits satisfactory explanation for his absence. As per notice dated June 29, 1983, published in daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika on July 1, 1983, the workman was required to join the duties on July 5, 1983, falling which it was to be construed that workman was not interested in working with the employer. 10. Since the workman himself voluntarily abandoned the service, it could not have been held that workman was retrenched from the services. Learned Labour Court Judge, in my opinion, has committed illegality in not properly considering the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Act and Regulation 9 (xiii) (a) of the Regulations. 11. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated February 2, 1994 stands set side. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******