Order In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Award dated 24th September, 2002 published/pronounced on 31.12.2002 by learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 33 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages has been awarded in favour of the concerned workman and against the petitioner-Management. 2. The facts, in brief, are stated as under:- A dispute was raised by respondent No.2 with regard to termination of his service and the matter was referred vide notification dated 17.12.1988 to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. The reference is quoted as under:- "Whether the termination of service of Sri P.C. Manjhi, Hat Job Man, Staff No. 261644, workman of Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If not whether he is entitled, to reinstatement in service or/and any other relief?" The learned Labour Court, after considering the entire case was pleased to pass the impugned award on 24th September, 2002 which was pronounced on 31st December, 2002 and vide its award ordered reinstatement to the concerned workman with 50% back wages. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was a habitual absentee and remained unauthorisedly absent regularly for which notices were issued from time to time but he did not file any show cause and it was in these background that a charge-sheet was issued on 7.11.1986 and enquiry was held and in the first instance he was let off with a warning on 6.7.1986. Again the respondent-workman absented himself from 8.10.1986 for which again notice was issued and charge-sheet was drawn vide letter dated 13.12.1987 and it was in these background that his name was struck off from the rolls. 4. In reply the counsel for the respondent submits that he was undergoing medical treatment and the medical certificate were duly exhibited before the learned Labour Court which was marked as Exhibits-W/1, W1/1 and W1/2 and so on and the same were proved and these certificates were issued by doctors of Bokaro General Hospital. 4. In reply the counsel for the respondent submits that he was undergoing medical treatment and the medical certificate were duly exhibited before the learned Labour Court which was marked as Exhibits-W/1, W1/1 and W1/2 and so on and the same were proved and these certificates were issued by doctors of Bokaro General Hospital. The learned Labour Court while considering the entire evidence, pleadings and the arguments held as under:- "As such the order striking out the name of the workman from the rolls of the Company amounts to retrenchment in clause 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with by the management. As such the order of the management striking out the names of the workman from the rolls of the Company is illegal and unjustified." 5. The main issue in question is as to whether a notice under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act was mandatory and in absence of it the order of retrenchment was bad in law. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to (1989)6 SCC page 538 and further (2000)5 SCC page 65 Punjab Bank and Syndicate Bank respectively to suggest that the very basis of the award was illegal since the management was entitled to take action under standing orders where workman absented without information and thus any action taken must be deemed to be legal and valid. It is also contended that in such cases compliance of Section 25(F) was not necessary. He has also referred to and relied upon (2001)1 SCC page 214 i.e. Punjab and Sindh Bank case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in proceeding on erroneous basis that there was non-compliance with regard to principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside the order of the High Court. It also held that since the delinquent employee did not give his show cause nor offered any explanation with regard to unauthorized absence from duty, the question of compliance of natural justice was not necessary. Again in (2004)8 SCC page 129 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compliance of provision of Section 25(F) would arise only if the services are terminated on the ground other than misconduct and the same cannot be put in straightjacket formula. 7. I have considered the arguments and the submissions. Again in (2004)8 SCC page 129 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compliance of provision of Section 25(F) would arise only if the services are terminated on the ground other than misconduct and the same cannot be put in straightjacket formula. 7. I have considered the arguments and the submissions. The admitted fact remains that several opportunities were given to the workman and as many as 7-8 notices were issued but the respondent remained a habitual absentee. Even on earlier occasion he was given a warning still then he did not improve and again absented unauthorisedly. 8. Under Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act retrenchment means the, termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and Section 25(F) applies to normal retrenchment and the pre-condition is that he should be in continuous service for not less that one year, then one month notice in writing or in lieu of such notice wages for the period of such notice has to be given. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004)8 see page 129 in an identical situation held at paragraph 11 that if the services of the workman were terminated for misconduct, the question of payment of any retrenchment compensation or service of any statutory notice could not arise. The question of compliance with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act would arise, if the services of the workman concerned were terminated on a ground other than misconduct. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court misdirected itself and failed to appreciate the settled law and the provisions under Section 2(00) and 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 31.12.2002 in Reference Case No. 33 of 1988 is set aside.