JUDGMENT 1. 1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 11.11.2003 declining the relief to him for his reinstatement with consequential benefits as also to declare the award illegal as also to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on the post of driver after his due selection through recruitment process in May 1975. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily but vide order dated 3.6.1981, his services were terminated with retrospective effect w.e.f. 16.2.1981 without conducting a disciplinary enquiry for misconduct of absence as required under clause 35 of the Standing Orders, 1965. The petitioner aggrieved with the aforesaid termination order, preferred a departmental appeal but the respondent department dismissed the same on 7.11.1981. Against dismissal of the departmental appeal, the petitioner preferred a review petition which is still pending. The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned termination order, preferred a civil suit No. 600/1993, before learned AMJM, Jaipur City, Jaipur but during the pendency of the suit, Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) Krishnakant Vs. RSRTC, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 75 observed that the matter regarding Industrial Dispute and more particularly where it amounts to retrenchment, shall be tried by the Forums created under Industrial Disputes Act, the consequence of which the petitioner filed a dispute before the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the learned Tribunal'. 3. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, decided the dispute against the present petitioner vide award dated 11.11.2003. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, has preferred the instant petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that Mr. Rakesh Kumar, in his cross examination admitted that the absence from duty tantamount to the misconduct under Clause 34 of the Standing Orders and under Clause 35 enquiry should have been conducted but in the present matter, enquiry was not conducted because the petitioner was absenting. Mr. Rakesh Kumar also admitted that neither he placed the newspaper cutting containing the notice before the learned Labour Court nor it produce any earlier notice either sent by registered post or ordinary post regarding his absence from duty w.e.f. 16.2.1981. Mr. Rakesh Kumar also admitted that neither he placed the newspaper cutting containing the notice before the learned Labour Court nor it produce any earlier notice either sent by registered post or ordinary post regarding his absence from duty w.e.f. 16.2.1981. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, also admitted in the cross examination that the petitioner had completed 240 days prior to his termiantion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at Bar that the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 16.2.1981. This fact could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel also gave much emphasis on the cross-examination of Mr. Rakesh Kumar. 7. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the following cases : (1) Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan SBCWP No. 3241/88, decided on 28.11.1990. (2) Asha Ram Vs. Executive Engineer & Ors., reported in 1989 (1) page 589 . (3) M/s. Cooper Engineering Vs. P.P. Munde, reported in 31 Vol. FLR 188 (SC) . 8. In the afore-mentioned cases, it is held that the termination of an employee with retrospective effect is bad in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on L. Rober D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, reported in 1982 (1) SCC 645 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that "such termination on account of unauthorized absence falls under the ambit of retrenchment" and the same view has been followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Yadav V. JMA Industries (Ltd.), reported in 1983 FJR, page 271 . 10. Earlier to the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also taken the same view in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1309/1980, Rajasthan Bank Employees Union V/s Central Government Industrial Tribunal decided on 25.8.1991 and this judgment was upheld finally up-to Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material placed before me including the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. The facts of above referred case, clearly reveal that the service of an employee cannot be terminated with retrospective effect and if an order of termination with retrospective effect is passed, then it is bad in the eye of law. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. 12. The facts of above referred case, clearly reveal that the service of an employee cannot be terminated with retrospective effect and if an order of termination with retrospective effect is passed, then it is bad in the eye of law. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The award dated 11.11.2003 passed by learned Tribunal, Ajmer is quashed and set-aside. The order of termination dated 3.6.1981 passed by the respondent department is illegal. The petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits, from the date of termination.Petition allowed. *******