CW 1422/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1422/2009 State & Anr Versus Prabhu Singh Date of Order : 06/01/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. LN Boss, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for petitioners-State Mr. Kailash C. Sharma, for respondent - Workman Instant petition has been filed by State assailing Award dt.14/08/2008 passed by Labour Court, Kota, in LCR-97/2000, whereby termination of respondent workman was held to be in contravention of S.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) - as a consequence whereof, respondent workman was directed to be reinstated in service without back wages. Respondent workman, as alleged in his statement of claim, was initially appointed on daily wages as “Mate” on 03/12/1978 but his services were terminated vide order dt. 22/07/1980 – against which Reference was made by appropriate Government to Labour Court. However, on settlement being arrived at between parties, order was passed by Labour Court on 22/10/83 for his reinstatement – in compliance whereof, he was reinstated in service vide order dt.05/04/84 and vide order dt.21/04/84 (Ann.AA/1), his services were again terminated CW 1422/09 //2// appending a Note that he may collect amount of compensation & wages in terms of S.25-F of the Act by 4 PM on 22/04/84 in the office of petitioner-department. Again, the workman raised dispute, of which Reference was made by appropriate Government. After taking note of material on record, learned Labour Court observed that since services of workman were terminated vide order dt.21/04/84 and payment of compensation & one months' salary/wages in lieu of notice as required U/s 25-F of the Act has to be made simultaneously while in case of respondent- workman, indisputably, petitioner-department directed the workman to collect & accept compensation and one month's salary/ wages in lieu of notice from its office next day. However, it remained un-controverted that amount of compensation & one month’s wages in lieu of notice was neither tendered nor paid, which was mandatorily required under the Act to be paid simultaneously at the time of termination given effect to a workman. Taking note whereof, learned Labour Court finally held the order of termination to be bad in law and in contravention of S.25-F of the Act, and accordingly directed the employer to reinstate the workman in service without back wages. CW 1422/09 //3// Counsel for petitioner-State submits that once an offer was made as it was referred to in the order of termination, respondent- workman was under obligation to accept the amount of compensation & one months’ salary/ wages in lieu of notice from their office; as such it can be considered as an offer/amount tendered to the workman in compliance of requirement under the Act; however, workman since failed to collect and accept the same from its office, it may be considered to be a sufficient compliance of S.25-F of the Act and the learned Labour Court has committed serious error of law in holding their action of terminating services of the workman in violation of S.25-F of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, submission made by petitioner’s Counsel is of no substance for the reason that requirements under sub-sections (a) & (b) of S.25-F are to be simultaneously complied with while retrenchment is being given effect to, as held in RSRTC Vs. Judge Labour Court Jaipur (1984 RLR 981), wherein this Court (Per Hon. Dr. K.S.Sidhu, J.) observed ad infra: “21. To sum up, therefore, I find myself in agreement with the Tribunal that the Corporation retrenched the CW 1422/09 //4// workmen concerned on June 1, 1982, with effect the even date, and that, before or at the time of retrenchment, the Corporation did not pay or tender for payment to the workmen their respective dues payable under section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act. After making the retrenchment effective on June 1, 1982 the Corporation started the process of remitting the dues to the workmen at about 6 P.M. That day, All it could do on June 1, 1982, in the matter of these remittances was to put in the process of mail bank drafts for 20 workmen only. The remaining 96 drafts were put in the process of mail on June 2. Thus, none of the 116 workmen to whom demand drafts were mailed on June 1, evening and June 2, forenoon could have possibly received those drafts before June 3. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to say that the Corporation had complied with the conditions precedent enacted in section 25(a) & (b) before or at the time of retrenchment. It is unfortunate that the officials of the Corporation who handled this matter did not realise that the requirements of Section 25-F as interpreted by the Supreme Court from time to time are very strict and that the courts are not prepared to condone any delay, whatever the reason, in the payment of wages in lieu of notice and CW 1422/09 //5// retrenchment compensation to the workmen in accordance with provisions of section 25-F...” Indisputably, in the instant case while services of respondent workman were being terminated, compensation & one month’s salary/ wages in lieu of notice was not simultaneously tendered to him and it was merely observed in the order of termination that he could collect and accept the same from their office upto 4 PM on 22/04/1984, which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be considered to be sufficient compliance of mandatory requirement of S.25F of the Act and taking note of over-all material on record, learned Labour Court has rightly granted benefit of reinstatement without back wages in favour of workman. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed by learned Labour Court while passing the Award impugned, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner-State is directed to comply with the Award within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/ 1422CW09Jn6-DsID-Awrd.doc