1 lpa 101-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3041 OF 2011 Seinumero Machine Tools Ltd., Pune ...Appellant vs. Mr.Sunil Kantilal Surwase ...Respondent Mr.A.D. Patwardhan with Mr.N.A. Malunjkar with Mr.T.R. Yadav for the Appellant. Mr.N.R. Kulkarni for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. MAY 3, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2 This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th April, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3041/2011 whereby their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2 lpa 101-2011 India has been dismissed. This petition was filed against the order dated 14th September, 2010 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (ID) No.57/2004 directing the petitioner-appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and pay him full back wages with effect from 26th May, 2002. 3 The contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant are two fold. Firstly, he submitted that the requirement under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to only send a notice and not actual service of the notice on the employee, and secondly, he submitted that it is not mandatory to maintain seniority list. 4 In our opinion, both the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merits. In our opinion, it is mandatory for the employer to effect service of the notice under Section 25-F on the employee and unless notice as 3 lpa 101-2011 contemplated under Section 25-F is served, no further action in pursuance thereof is sustainable in law. In the present case, though the notice was issued, it was returned with the remark the addressee is out of station . This clearly shows that the notice was never served on the respondent- employee and, therefore, it cannot be construed as refusal of the notice as tried to be contended by the appellant. On this ground itself, we are satisfied that the order impugned in the present appeal deserves no interference. 5 Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)