Speaking for the Court, R.N. Misra, J. significantly said: "We are now inclined to hold that the stage has come when the view indicated in Money case (supra) has been 'absorbed into the consensus ' and there is no scope for putting the clock back or for an anti clockwise operation." More than a month thereafter in Gammon India Ltd. vs Niranjan Dass; , , a three Judges Bench (D.A. Desai, R.B. Misra and Ranganath Misra, JJ.) construing the one month 's notice of termination in that case due to reduc tion of volume of business of the company said: "On a true construction of the notice, it would appeal that the respondent had become surplus on account of reduction in volume of work and that constitutes retrenchment even in the traditional sense of the term as interpreted in Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Pipraich Sugar Mills Mazdoor 145 Union, though that view does not hold the field in view of the recent decisions of this Court in State Bank of India vs N. Sundara Money; Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa; Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patia la; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs Shambhu Nath Mukherjee; Mohan Lal vs Management of M/s. Bharat Electron ics Ltd. and L. Robert D 'Souza vs Executive Engineer, South ern Railway.