{"id":257855,"date":"1980-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980"},"modified":"2017-02-07T06:49:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T01:19:44","slug":"santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","title":{"rendered":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1219, 1980 SCR (3) 884<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSANTOSH GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE BANK OF PATIALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1219\t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 884\n 1980 SCC  (3) 340\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1981 SC 422\t (1,2,7,12)\n RF\t    1981 SC1253\t (8)\n E\t    1982 SC 854\t (5,6)\n R\t    1983 SC1320\t (9,11)\n R\t    1984 SC 500\t (2)\n R\t    1984 SC1673\t (3)\n RF\t    1986 SC1680\t (4)\n R\t    1987 SC1478\t (7)\n F\t    1990 SC1808\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial\t  Disputes   Act<\/a>,   1947-Section   2   (OO)-\n\"Retrenchment\"-Termination.......    for     any     reason,\nwhatsoever, meaning  of Section\t 25 FF\tand Section  25\t FFF\nobject of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant  was  employed  in\tthe  State  Bank  of\nPatiala, The  Mall, Patiala  from July\t13, 1973 till August\n21, 1974,  when her  services were  terminated. Despite some\nbreaks\tin  service  for  a  few  days,\t the  appellant\t had\nadmittedly worked  for 240 days in the year preceding August\n21, 1974.  According to\t the workman, the termination of her\nservice\t was  \"retrenchment\"  within  the  meaning  of\tthat\nexpression in  Section 2(OO)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act,\n1947, since it did not fall within any of the excepted cases\nmentioned in  Section 2(OO)<\/a>. Since there was \"retrenchment\",\nit was bad for non-compliance with the provisions of section\n25 F  of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, the\ncontention of  the management  was that\t the termination  of\nservices was  not due to discharge of surplus labour. It was\ndue to\tthe failure  of the  workman to\t pass the test which\nwould have  enabled him\t to be\tconfirmed  in  the  service.\nTherefore, it  was not\tretrenchment within  the meaning  of\nsection 2(OO)<\/a>  of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Presiding\nOfficer, Central  Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour\nCourt, accepted\t the  management's  contention\tand  decided\nagainst the  workman appellant.\t Hence the appeal by special\nleave.\n     Allowing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD: (i)\tThe discharge  of the  workman on the ground\nthat she  did not pass the test which would have enabled him\nto be  confirmed was  \"retrenchment\" within  the meaning  of\nsection 2(OO)<\/a>  and, therefore,\tthe requirements  of section\n25F<\/a> had to be complied with. [892 F-G]\n     (ii) Section  2(OO)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act uses\na wide\tlanguage particularly  the words  \"termination.. for\nany  reason   whatsoever\".  The\t  definition  \"retrenchment\"\nexpressly excludes  termination of  service as a \"punishment\ninflicted by  way  of  disciplinary  action\".  It  does\t not\ninclude,  voluntary   retrenchment   of\t  the\tworkman\t  or\nretrenchment  of   the\tworkman\t  on  reaching\tthe  age  of\nsuperannuation or  termination of the service of the workman\non the ground of continuous ill-health. The Legislature took\nspecial care  to mention that these were not included within\nthe meaning  of \"termination  by the employer of the service\nof a workman for any reason whatsoever\". This emphasises the\nbroad  interpretation\tto  be\t given\tto   the  expression\n\"retrenchment\". [887 E-H, 888 A]\n     2. If due weight is given to the words \"the termination\nby the\temployer of  the service of a workman for any reason\nwhatsoever\" and if the words 'for any reason whatsoever\" are\nunderstood to mean what they plainly say, it is difficult to\nescape the  conclusion that  the  expression  'retrenchment'\nmust include  every termination\t of the service of a workman\nby an  act of  the employer.  The underlying  assumption, of\ncourse, is that the undertaking is running as an under-\n885\ntaking and  the employer  continues as an employer but where\neither on  account of  transfer of  the\t undertaking  or  on\naccount\t of   the  closure  of\tthe  undertaking  the  basic\nassumption  disappears,\t  there\t can   be  no\tquestion  of\n'retrenchment'\twithin\t the  meaning\tof  the\t  definition\ncontained in s. 2(OO)<\/a> of the Act. [888 A-C]\n     Hariprasad Shivshankar  Shukla v.\tA.D. Divakar<\/a>  [1957]\nSCR 121: applied.\n     By introducing  section  25  FF  and  Section  25\tFFF,\nParliament treated  the termination  of\t the  service  of  a\nworkman on  the transfer  or closure  of an  undertaking  as\n\"deemed retrenchment\".\tThe effect  was that  every case  of\ntermination of\tservice by  act or  employer  even  if\tsuch\ntermination was\t a consequence of transfer or closure of the\nundertaking was\t to be\ttreated as  'retrenchment'  for\t the\npurposes  of   notice,\tcompensation  etc.\"  The  expression\n\"termination of\t service  for  any  reason  whatsoever\"\t now\ncovers every kind of termination of service except those not\nexpressly included in S. 25F<\/a> or not expressly provided or by\nother provisions of the Act as 25 FF And 25 FFF. [888 C-F]\n     4. The  manifest object  of Section 25 FF and S. 25 FFF\nis to so compensate the workman for loss of employment as to\nprovide him  the wherewithal to subsist until he finds fresh\nemployment. The\t non-inclusion of  'voluntary retirement  of\nthe workmen,  retirement of  workmen, on reaching the age of\nsuperannuation, termination  of the service of a workman, on\nthe ground  af continued  ill-health' in  the definition  of\n'retrenchment'\tclearly\t indicate  and\temphasise  the\ttrue\nobject of  25F, 25  FF and  25 FFF  and the  nature  of\t the\ncompensation provided by those provisions.\" [888 F-H]\n     Indian Hume  Pipe Co.  Ltd. v. The Workman [1960] 2 SCR\n32; followed.\n     5.\t  The\t submission   that    notwithstanding\t the\ncomprehensive language of the definition of retrenchment' in\nsection\t 2(OO)<\/a>\t the  expression  continues  to\t retain\t its\noriginal meaning,  namely, discharge from service on account\nof surplus  age is  not correct.  It cannot  be assumed that\nParliament was undertaking an exercise in futility to give a\nlong winded  definition merely\tto say\tthat the  expression\nmeans what it always meant. [889 D-E]\n     Hariprasad Shivshankar  Shukla v.\tA.D. Divakar<\/a>  [1957]\nSCR 121,  Hindustan Steel  Ltd. v.  The\t Presiding  Officer,\nLabour<\/a> Court  Orissa &\tOrs. [1977] 1 SCR 585; State Bank of\nIndia v.  Shri N. Sundaramoney<\/a> [1974] 3 SCR 160; Delhi Cloth\nand General Mills Ltd. v. Shambunath Mukherjee & Ors<\/a>. [1978]\n1 SCR 591; explained and followed.\n     Management of  M\/s\t Willcose  Buckwell  India  Ltd.  v.\nJagannath &  Ors<\/a>. AIR  1974 S.C. 1164; Employees in Relation\nv. Digmoden  Colliery<\/a> v.  Their Workmen\t [1965] 3  SCR\t448;\ndistinguished.\n     L.\t Robert\t D'Souza  v.  Executive\t Engineer,  Southern\nRailway\t and  Anr<\/a>.  (1979)  KLJ\t Kerala\t 211;  The  Managing\nDirector, National  Garage v.  J. Gonsalves<\/a>  (1962) KLJ\t 56.\nGoodlas Nerolac Paints v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi<\/a> (1967) 1\nLLJ 545;  Rajasthan State  Electricity Board v. Labour<\/a> Court\n(1966) 1 LLJ. 381; over-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3563 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the Award dated 9-7-1978
\nof the\tPresiding  Officer  Central  Government.  Industrial
\nTribunal-Cum-\n<\/p>\n
886<\/span><\/p>\n
Labour Court,  New Delhi in I.D. No. 90 of 1977 published in
\nGazette of India on 11-8-1979.\n<\/p>\n
     M.K.  Ramamurthi,\t and  Romesh   C.  Pathak   for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Anand\tParkash,  Adarsh  Kumar,  Mrs.\tLaxmi  Anand
\nParkash, and Jagat Arora for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA\tREDDY,\t J.-Santosh  Gupta,  the  appellant-
\nWorkman (a  woman),  was  employed  in\tthe  State  Bank  of
\nPatiala, the  Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August
\n21, 1974,  when her  services were  terminated. Though there
\nwere some breaks in service for a few days, those breaks are
\nnot relevant for the purpose of deciding this case though we
\nmay have  to advert  to them  in another connection. Despite
\nthe breaks,  the workman  had admittedly worked for 240 days
\nin the\tyear preceding\tAugust 21,  1974. According  to\t the
\nworkman the  termination of  her services was ‘retrenchment’
\nwithin the  meaning of\tthat expression\t in s.\t2(OO)<\/a> of the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, 1947, since it did not fall within
\nany of\tthe 3  excepted cases  mentioned in  s. 2(OO)<\/a>. Since
\nthere was ‘retrenchment’, it was bad for non-compliance with
\nthe provisions of s. 25-F<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act. On
\nthe other hand the contention of the management was that the
\ntermination of\tservices was not due to discharge of surplus
\nlabour. It was due to the failure of the workman to pass the
\ntest which  would have\tenabled her  to be  confirmed in the
\nservice. Therefore,  it\t was  not  retrenchment\t within\t the
\nmeaning of s. 2(OO)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     S. 25-F  prescribes that  no workman  employed  in\t any
\nindustry who  has been\tin continuous  service for  not less
\nthan one  year shall be retrenched by the employer until-(a)
\nthe workman  has been  given one  month’s notice  in writing
\nindicating the\treasons for  retrenchment and  the period of
\nnotice has  expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of
\nsuch notice,  wages for\t the period  of the  notice; (b) the
\nworkman\t has   been  paid   at\tthe  time  of  retrenchment,
\ncompensation which  shall  be  equivalent  to  fifteen\tdays
\naverage pay  for every\tcompleted year of continuous service
\nor any part thereof in a excess of six months; and(c) notice
\nin the\tprescribed  manner  is\tserved\ton  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment or  any such authority as may be specified by the
\nappropriate  Government\t by  notification  in  the  official
\nGazette. There\tis a  proviso to  clause (a) which dispenses
\nwith the necessity for the notice contemplated by the clause
\nif the\tretrenchment is\t under an  agreement which specifies
\nthe date for the termination of service.\n<\/p>\n
887<\/span><\/p>\n
     The expression  retrenchment is specially defined by s.
\n2(OO)<\/a> of the Act and is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “2(OO) ‘retrenchment’ means the termination by the
\n     employer of  the service  of a  workman for  any reason
\n     whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
\n     way of disciplinary action, but does not include-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  voluntary retirement of the workman; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  retirement of\t the workman  on reaching the age of
\n\t  superannuation  if   the  contract  of  employment
\n\t  between the  employer and  the  workman  concerned
\n\t  contains a stipulation in that behalf; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  termination of  the service  of a  workman on\t the
\n\t  ground of continued ill-health;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Hariprasad  Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divikar<\/a>, the
\nSupreme Court  took the view that the word ‘retrenchment’ as
\ndefined in  s. 2(OO)<\/a> did not include termination of services
\nof all\tworkmen on  a bonafide\tclosure of an industry or on
\nchange of  ownership or management of the industry. In order
\nto provide  for the  situations which the Supreme Court held
\nwere  not  covered  by\tthe  definition\t of  the  expression
\n‘retrenchment’, the  Parliament added s. 25 FF and s. 25 FFF
\nproviding for  the payment of compensation to the workmen in
\ncase of\t transfer of  undertakings and in case of closure of
\nundertakings respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     If\t the  definition  of  ‘retrenchment’  is  looked  at
\nunaided and  unhampered by  precedent, one is at once struck
\nby the remarkably wide language employed and particularly by
\nthe  use   of  the   words  “termination..  for\t any  reason
\nwhatsoever”. The  definition expressly\texcludes termination
\nof service as a ‘punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary
\naction’. The  definition does  not include,  so it expressly
\nsays, voluntary\t retrenchment of the workman or retrenchment
\nof the\tworkman on  reaching the  age of  superannuation  or
\ntermination of\tthe service  of the workman on the ground of
\ncontinuous ill-health.\tVoluntary retrenchment\tof a workman
\nor retrenchment\t of the\t workman  on  reaching\tthe  age  of
\nsuperannuation can  hardly be  described as  termination, by
\nthe  employer,\tof  the\t service  of  a\t workman.  Yet,\t the
\nLegislature took  special care to mention that they were not
\nincluded within\t the meaning of “termination by the employer
\nof the\tservice of  a workman  for any\treason\twhatsoever:.
\nThis, in our opinion, emphasizes the broad interpretation to
\n888<\/span>
\nbe given  to the  expression ‘retrenchment’.  In our view if
\ndue weight  is given  to the  words “the  termination by the
\nemployer  of  the  service  of\ta  workman  for\t any  reason
\nwhatsoever” and if the words ‘for any reason whatsoever’ are
\nunderstood to mean what they plainly say, it is difficult to
\nescape the  conclusion that  the  expression  ‘retrenchment’
\nmust include  every termination\t of the service of a workman
\nby an  act of  the employer.  The underlying  assumption, of
\ncourse, is that the undertaking is running as an undertaking
\nand the\t employer continues as an employer but. where either
\non account  of transfer\t of the undertaking or on account of
\nthe  closure   of  the\t undertaking  the  basic  assumption
\ndisappears, there  can\tbe  no\tquestion  of  ‘retrenchment’
\nwithin the meaning of the definition contained in, S. 2(OO)<\/a>.
\nThis came to be realised as a result of the decision of this
\nCourt in  Hariprasad  Shivshanker  Shukla  v.  A.D.  Divikar
\n(Supra<\/a>). The Parliament then stepped in and introduced 25 FF
\nand 25FFF by providing that compensation shall be payable to
\nworkmen in  case of  transfer or  undertaking or  closure of
\nundertaking as\tif the\tworkmen had  been retrenched. We may
\nrightly say that the termination of the service of a workman
\non the\ttransfer or closure of an undertaking was treated by
\nParliament as  ‘deemed retrenchment’.  The effect  was\tthat
\nevery case of termination of service by act cf employer even
\nif such\t termination involved  was a consequence of transfer
\nor  closure   of  the  undertaking  was\t to  be\t treated  as
\n‘retrenchment’ for the purposes of notice, compensation etc.
\nWhatever doubts might have existed before Parliament enacted
\n25FF and  25FFF about  the width  of 25F there cannot now be
\nany doubt  that the  expression ‘termination’ of service for
\nany reason  whatsoever now  covers every kind of termination
\nof service  except those not expressly included in S. 25F<\/a> or
\nnot expressly  provided for  by other  provisions of the Act
\nsuch as Ss. 25FF and 25FFF.\n<\/p>\n
     In interpreting  these provisions\ti.e. 25F,  25FF\t and
\n25FFF one  must not ignore their object. The manifest object
\nof these provisions is to so compensate the workman for loss
\nof employment  as to  provide him the wherewithal to subsist
\nuntil  he  finds  fresh\t employment.  The  non-inclusion  of
\n‘voluntary  retrenchment   of  the  workmen,  retirement  of
\nworkmen on  reaching the  age of superannuation, termination
\nor the\tservice of a workman on the ground of continued ill-
\nhealth’ in  the definition of ‘retrenchment clearly indicate
\nand emphasise  what we\thave said  about the  true object of
\n25F, 25FF  and 25FFF  and the  nature  of  the\tcompensation
\nprovided by  those provisions.\tThe nature  of\tretrenchment
\ncompensation has been explained in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.
\nv. the Workmen<\/a> as follows :\n<\/p>\n
889<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “As  the   expression\t ‘retrenchment\tcompensation
\n     indicates it  is compensation  paid to a workman on his
\n     retrenchment and it is intended to give him some relief
\n     and to soften the rigour of hardship which retrenchment
\n     inevitably causes.\t The retrenched\t workmens,  suddenly
\n     and without  his fault, thrown on the street and has to
\n     face  the\t grim  problem\t of  unemployment.   At\t the
\n     commencement of  his  employment  a  workmen  naturally
\n     expects and looks forward to security of service spread
\n     over a  long period but retrenchment destroys his hopes
\n     and   expectations.    The\t  object   of\tretrenchment
\n     compensation is  to  give\tpartial\t protection  to\t the
\n     retrenched employee  and his  family to  enable them to
\n     tide over the hard period of unemployment”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Once the  object of  25F, 25FF  and 25FFF is understood
\nand  the   true\t nature\t of  the  compensation\twhich  those
\nprovisions provide  is realised, it is difficult to make any
\ndistinction between  termination of  service for  one reason
\nand termination of service for another.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Anand Prakash wants us to hold that notwithstanding
\nthe   comprehensive    language\t  of   the   definition\t  of
\n“retrenchment” in  s. 2\t (OO) the  expression  continues  to
\nretain its  original meaning  which was,  according  to\t the
\ncounsel, discharged from service on account of ‘surplusage’.
\nIt is impossible to accept his submission. If the submission
\nis right,  there  was  no  need\t to  define  the  expression
\n‘retrenchment’, and  in such  wide terms.  We cannot  assume
\nthat the  Parliament was undertaking an exercise in futility
\nto give\t a long\t winded definition  merely to  say that\t the
\nexpression means what it always meant.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  now examine  the precedents  of this  Court  to
\ndiscover whether  the true  position in law is what has been
\nstated by us in the previous paragraphs. The earliest of the
\ncases of  this Court  to which our attention was invited was
\nHarprasad Shivashankar Shukla v. A. D. Divikar<\/a> (supra). That
\nwas a  case which was decided before Ss. 25FF and 25FFF were
\nbrought on the statute book. In fact it was as a consequence
\nof that\t decision that the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a> had to be
\namended and  these two provisions came to be introduced into
\nthe Act.  The question which arose for decision in that case
\nwas stated by the learned judges themselves as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The question,  however, before  us  is-does\tthis
\n     definition merely give effect to the ordinary, accepted
\n     notion  of\t retrenchment  in  an  existing\t or  running
\n     industry by
\n890<\/span>
\n     embodying the  notion in  apt and\treadily intelligible
\n     words or  does it\tgo so far beyond the accepted notion
\n     of\t retrenchment  as  to  include\tthe  termination  of
\n     services  of  all\tworkmen\t in  an\t industry  when\t the
\n     industry itself  ceases to\t exist on a bonafide closure
\n     or discontinuance of his business by the employer”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The question so stated was answered by the learned judges in
\nthe following way :\n<\/p>\n
     “In the  absence of  any compelling  words to  indicate
\nthat the intention was even to include a bonafide closure of
\nthe whole  business, it\t would, we  think, be  divorcing the
\nexpression altogether  from the\t context to  give it  such a
\nwide meaning  as is contended for by learned counsel for the
\nrespondents.. it  would be  against the entire scheme of the
\nAct to\tgive the  definition clause relating to retrenchment
\nsuch a\tmeaning\t as  would  include  within  the  definition
\ntermination of\tservice of  all workmen by the employer when
\nthe business itself ceases to exist”.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  there are some observations which, if
\nnot properly  understood with  reference to  the question at
\nissued seemingly support the submission of Dr. Anand Prakash
\nthat ‘termination  of service  for  any\t reason\t whatsoever’
\nmeans no  more and  no less than discharge of a labour force
\nwhich  is   a  surplus\tage.  The  misunderstanding  of\t the
\nobservations and  the  resulting  confusion  stem  from\t not
\nappreciating (1)  the lead  question  which  was  posed\t and
\nanswered by the learned judges and (2) that the reference to
\n‘discharge on  account of  surplus age’ was illustrative and
\nnot exhaustive\tand by\tway of\tcontrast with  discharge  on
\naccount of transfer or closure of business.\n<\/p>\n
     Management\t of  M\/s  Willcox  Buckwell  India  Ltd.  v.
\nJagannath and  Ors<\/a>. and\t Employers in  Relation to  Digwadih
\nColliery  v.   Their  Workmen<\/a>  were  both  cases  where\t the
\ntermination of\tthe Workman  from service  was on account of
\n“surplusage” and,  therefore, the  cases were clear cases of
\nretrenchment. They  do not  throw any  light on the question
\nnow at issue.\n<\/p>\n
     In State  Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundaramoney<\/a> a Bench
\nof three  judges of  this Court consisting of Chandrachud J.
\n(as  be\t  then\twas),  Krishna\tIyer,  J.,  and\t Gupta,\t J.,
\nconsidered the\tquestion whether  s. 25F<\/a>  of the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act  was attracted  to a  case where  the order  of
\nappointment carried an automatic cessation of service,
\n891<\/span>
\nthe period  of employment  working itself  out by  efflux of
\ntime and  not\tby an  act of employer, Krishna Iyer, J. who
\nspoke for the Court observed.\n<\/p>\n
\t  ‘Termination .. for any reason whatsoever’ are the
\n     key  words.  Whatever  the\t reasons  every\t termination
\n     spells retrenchment.  So the  sole question  is-has the
\n     employee’s service\t been terminated  ?  Verbal  apparel
\n     apart, the\t substance is  decisive: A termination takes
\n     place where a term expires either by the active step of
\n     the master\t of the\t running out of the stipulated term.
\n     To protect\t the weak  against the strong this policy of
\n     comprehensive   definition\t   has\t been\teffectuated.
\n     Termination embraces  not merely the act of termination
\n     by the  employer but  the fact of termination howsoever
\n     produced. True,  the section  speaks of retrenchment by
\n     the employer  and it is urged that some act of volition
\n     by the  employer to  bring\t about\tthe  termination  is
\n     essential\t to    attract\t s.    25F<\/a>   and   automatic
\n     extinguishment of\tservice be  effluxion of time cannot
\n     be sufficient.  Words of  multiple import\thave  to  be
\n     winnowed judicially  to suit  the social  philosophy of
\n     the statute.  So screened\twe hold\t that the transitive
\n     and intransitive  senses are  covered  in\tthe  current
\n     context. Moreover,\t an employer  terminates  employment
\n     not merely\t by passing an order as the service runs. He
\n     can do  so by  writing a  composite orders\t one  giving
\n     employment and  the other\tending\tor  limiting  it.  A
\n     separate, subsequent  determination  is  not  the\tsole
\n     magnetic pull  of the provision. A preemptive provision
\n     to terminate  is struck  by the  same vice as the post-
\n     appointment termination.  Dexterity of  diction  cannot
\n     defeat the articulated conscience of the provision”.
\n     In Hindustan  Steel  Ltd.\tv.  the\t Presiding  Officer,
\nLabour<\/a> Court,  Orissa and  Ors.\t the  question\tagain  arose
\nwhether\t termination  of  service  by  efflux  of  time\t was
\ntermination of service within the definition of retrenchment
\nin s.  2 (OO)  of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  Both\t the
\nearlier decisions  of the  Court in  Hariprasad\t Shivshankar
\nShukla v.  A.D. Divikar<\/a>\t and  State  Bank  of  India  v.  S.
\nSundaramoney<\/a> (supra)  were  considered.\t There\twas  also  a
\nrequest that  N. Sundaramoney’s\t case  conflicted  with\t the
\ndecision in  Hariprasad Shivshankar  Shukla v. A. D. Divikar<\/a>
\nand therefore  required reconsideration.  A Bench  of  three
\njudges of this Court consisting of Chandrachud J (as he then
\nwas), Goswami  J and  Gupta J held that there was nothing in
\nHuriparsad Shivshankar\tShukla v.  A.D.\t Divikar<\/a>  which\t was
\ninconsistent with  the decision\t in N.\tSundaramoney’s case.
\nThey held that the decision in
\n892<\/span>
\nHariparsad Shivshankar’s case that the words “for any reason
\nwhatsoever” used in the definition of retrenchment would not
\ninclude a  bonafide closure of the whole business because it
\nwould be  against the  entire scheme of the Act. The learned
\njudges then  observed that, on the facts before them to give
\nfull effect  to the  words “for any reason whatsoever” would
\nbe consistent  with the\t scope and  purpose of\ts. 25 of the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act<\/a> and  not contrary  to the scheme of
\nthe  Act.   In\tDelhi\tCloth  and  General  Mills  Ltd.  v.
\nShambhunath Mukharjee and Ors. Goswami, Shinghal and Jaswant
\nSingh JJ,  held that striking off the name of a workman from
\nthe rolls  by the  management was termination of the service
\nwhich was retrenchment within the meaning of s. 2(OO)<\/a> of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Anand\tPrakash, cited\tbefore us  the decision of a
\nFull Bench  of the  Kerala High Court in L. Rober D’Souza v.
\nExecutive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr<\/a>. and some other
\ncases decided  by other High Courts purporting to follow the
\ndecision of  this Court\t in Hariparsad Shivshankar Shukla v.
\nA.D. Divikar<\/a>‘s\tcase, Shukla’s\tcase, we have explained. The
\nratio of  Shukla’s case\t in fact, has already been explained
\nin Hindustan  Steel Ltd.,  v. the  Presiding Officer, Labour<\/a>
\nCourt Orissa  and Ors. The decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd.
\nv. the\tPresiding Officer, Labour<\/a> Court Orissa and Ors., and
\nState Bank  of India  v. N.  Sundaramoney<\/a> have, in our view,
\nproperly explained  Shukla’s case  and have  laid  down\t the
\ncorrect law.  The decision  of the  Kerala High\t Court in L.
\nRobert D’Souza v. Executive Engineer Southern Railway & Anr<\/a>.
\nand the\t other decisions of the other High Courts to similar
\neffect viz.  The ‘Managing  Director, National Garages v. J.
\nGonsalve<\/a>, Goodlas  Nerolac  Paints  v.\tChief  Commissioner,
\nDelhi and  Rajasthan  State  Electricity  Board.  v.  Labour
\nCourt, are,  therefore, over-ruled.  We hold, as a result of
\nour discussion,\t that the  discharge of\t the workman  on the
\nground-she did\tnot pass  the test  which would have enabled
\nher to be confirmed was ‘retrenchment’ within the meaning of
\ns. 2(OO)  and, therefore,  the requirements of s. 25F<\/a> had to
\nbe complied  with.   The order\tof  the\t Presiding  Officer,
\nCentral\t Govt.\tIndustrial  Tribunal-cum-Labour\t Court,\t new
\nDelhi, is  set aside  and the  appellant is  directed to  be
\nreinstated with\t full back  wages. The appellant is entitled
\nto her cost.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n893<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1219, 1980 SCR (3) 884 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF PATIALA DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1980 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSantosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2911,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\",\"name\":\"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980","datePublished":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980"},"wordCount":2911,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980","name":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T01:19:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-gupta-vs-state-bank-of-patiala-on-29-april-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257855\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}