IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3763 of 2005 Between: 1 Sri K. Somulu S/o Kasaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 2 Sri. Ch. Venkaiah S/o Kasaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 3 Sri P. Ramulu S/o Kondaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 4 Sri G. Veera Swamy S/o Guruvaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 5 Sri. S. Durgaiah S/o Meenaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 6 Sri v. Veera Shiva S/o Venkateshwarlu working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 7 Sri M. Guruvaiah S/o Thirupathiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 8 Sri Ch. Gopaiah S/o Chandraiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 9 Sri V. Srinu S/o Saidulu working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 10 Sri M. Roshaiah S/o Veera Swamy working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 11 Sri M. Venkataiah S/o Peddaiah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 12 Sri. N. Venkateshwarly S/o Venkat Narsatah working as NMR R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Principal Secrtary to Government, Transport, Roads & Buildings, (Services-III) Department, Secrtariat, Hyderabad, Andhra pradesh 2 Engineer in Chief R & B, (Administration & NABARD), Errum Manzil., Hyderabad. 3 The Excutive Engineer (Roads & Buildings), Division, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 4 The Deputy Executive Engineer, (Roads & Buildings), Sub- Division, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the 3rd respondnet in retrenching the service of the petitioners is illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set a side the proceedings nO. AB/A3/2004-2005/1596/2, dated 1-2-2005 issued by the 3rd respondent by granting reinstatement with all consequential benefits to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper Under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent-Management has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating the services of petitioners in the month of February 2005. It appears, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioners while paying one month’s pay in lieu of notice period, but they have not paid any compensation as contemplated under Section 25-F(b) of the I.D. Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to notice the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, which reads as under: “25-F: Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until (a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen day’s average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette). From a reading of the above, it is clear that all the conditions under Section 25-F have to be followed before terminating the services of any employee/workman, since the provision is mandatory in nature. All the clauses must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. In this case, though the respondents have paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice period, they have not paid any compensation as required under law. The learned counsel for respondent-Management submits that the particulars of service rendered by the petitioners are not available. May be, in a given case, getting those particulars may be difficult, but it is unfortunate that such a stand is taken in a case of this nature. In fact, earlier when the services of petitioners were sought to be terminated orally, they filed I.D.No.35 of 2002 and batch and the same were disposed of by order dated 8.7.2002, directing the respondent- management to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and without attendant benefits. In fact aggrieved thereby, respondent-management filed W.P.Nos.13775 of 2003 and batch and obtained Interim Stay subject to payment of wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act and petitioners were paid wages till .November, 2004. Thereafter, petitioners were reinstated into service and the Writ Petitions filed by the management were withdrawn. While that being so, the present impugned order has been passed purported to be under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioners have been in continuous service at least from the date of termination as per earlier award dated 1.12.1999. Therefore, the respondent- management should have calculated compensation from 1.12.1999 till February 2005 as required under Section 25-F(b) of the I.D. Act, but the same was not done. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents that the service particulars of the petitioners are not available, cannot be countenanced. Though a part of provision under Section 25-F has been followed, the other part was not followed and since the same is mandatory in nature, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.2.2008 DA