1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P. No.1883 of 2001 (Executive Engineer +1 ..V/s.. Jagdish Arbat) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J.T. Gilda, counsel for petitioners. Mr. S.T. Harkare, counsel for respondent. CORAM:- A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED:- 5 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has argued that the respondent employee was offered retrenchment compensation and that fact was duly proved by tendering evidence of Suresh Mhatre on behalf of petitioners. The said amount was made available on 8/7/1989. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that though the date of termination was 6/7/1989, offer of retrenchment of compensation made later on would not make any difference and the same could not invalidate the order of retrenchment itself. 2. None appeared for the respondent, though served. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and I have also gone through the judgments recorded by the trial Court as well as the Industrial Court. It is clear that the notice of termination of retrenchment was issued on 3/6/1989 effecting 2 termination w.e.f 6th July 1989. The notice does not at all refer to calculation of any retrenchment compensation nor the date, place and time from where the workmen was required to collect the retrenchment compensation. It is true notice of one month was given but that is not the only requirement. The factual aspect that on 6/7/1989 the amount of retrenchment compensation was kept for being paid to the workmen – respondent has been disbelieved by the Courts below and taking into consideration the admission given by witness Suresh for the petitioners that the amount was available only on 8/7/1989 the Courts below have held that provisions of section 25 F being mandatory there was no compliance. There is no dispute that the said provision has been held to be mandatory. The Labour Court as well as the Revisional Court did not agree with the contentions of the petitioners. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is therefore dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE nvt.