The ruling was handed down by a division bench comprising Justice S Saghir Ahmad and Justice M J Rao while dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) by Uptron India Ltd challenging a judgment of Allahabad high court.

By the impugned judgment of October 28, 1997, the high court upheld an award of the industrial tribunal directing reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages of an operator, termination of whose services by the company was found illegal.

The respondent, Shammi Bhan, was appointed as an operator (trainee) in the petitioner's establishment on June 13, 1980. On completion of training, she was absorbed on that post with effect from July 13, 1981 and was confirmed on July 13, 1982 -- thus acquiring the status of a permanent employee.

With effect from November 7, 1984, Bhan proceeded and remained till January29, 1985 on maternity leave. Thereafter, she allegedly remained absent with effect from January 30, 1985 to April 12, 1985 without any application for leave and consequently, by an order dated April 12, 1985, the petitioner informed her that her services stood automatically terminated in terms of clause 17(G) of the certified standing orders of the company. A dispute having been raised by Bhan, the state government referred the same to the industrial tribunal. The tribunal by its award dated July 21, 1992, held that the termination of the services of the respondent amounted to ``retrenchment'' within the meaning of section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act and since all other legal requirements had not been followed, the termination was bad and consequently she was entitled to reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages from the date of termination till the reinstatement.

The award of the tribunal was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition in the high court (Lucknow Bench) and the high courtby the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition upholding the findings of the tribunal that the termination of services of the respondent was ``retrenchement.'' The high court further held that while invoking the provisions of clause 17 (G) of the certified standing orders, the petitioner ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Hence, the special leave petition before the apex court.

The judge said that conferment of a ``permanent'' status on an employee guaranteed security of tenure.'' It is now well settled that the services of a permanent employee, whether employed by the government, a government company, a government instrumentality.