1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6020/2008. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE TRIBUNAL & OTHERS DATE OF ORDER : 22.08.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Rameshwar Chauhan for the petitioner. The appropriate government by its notification dated 27.01.2003 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the labour court in the terms that “whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating services of workman Shri Surajkaran w.e.f. 9.1.2002 was legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” Learned labour court after considering all the facts including the fact that the workman was employed with the employer on 11.06.1994 and was discontinued from service on 09.01.2002, reached at the conclusion that the workman was in continuous employment of the employer and his termination was nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the 2 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that was made without making compliance of the mandatory condition precedent as prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947. Accordingly, while setting aside the retrenchment of the workman, the learned labour court directed the employer to reinstate the workman with a compensation in a tune of Rs.5000/-. While assailing validity of the award aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the workman was not as per rules, therefore, there was no need to adhere to mandatory condition precedent for valid retrenchment. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced. The mode and manner of recruitment for making compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is absolutely irrelevant. The only requirement is that there should be a relationship of employer and workman, and the workman sought to be retrenched should be in continuous service. The requirement aforesaid is satisfied in the instant matter, and it is not in dispute that the employer has not adhered the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, before retrenching the respondent workman from service. Thus, no error is committed by the learned labour court under the award impugned. No 3 interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, is warranted. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/