M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Petitioner challenges Exhibit P-3 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam (first respondent), ordering reinstatement of the second respondent. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent, he contended that his service was terminated by the petitioner-management with effect from June 10, 1985, illegally. He claims to have been in service from December 22, 1975. First respondent held that the petitioner has not complied with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act when it retrenched the second respondent and so it is not valid. He is directed to be reinstated.
2. Petitioner's case is that it had engaged a counsel to represent its case before the first respondent, that due to oversight there was omission to note the posting date and so ExhibitP-3 award was passed ex parte. Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the exparte decision with delay condonation petition. First respondent held that sufficient grounds have not been made out to condone the delay and hence dismissed that petition.
3. First respondent, as per Exhibit P-3 award, held that the retrenchment of the second respondent cannot be sustained in view of non-compliance with Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 25-F of the Act The notice issued by the Secretary of the petitioner-Society dated June 6, 1985, discloses that the governing body of the Society decided to abolish the post of storekeeper-cum-clerk-cum-supervisor with effect from June 10, 1985, and called upon the second respondent to get himself relieved from the service on receiptof the amounts due to him as per law. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the said notice does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act and so it cannot have any legal validity Petitioner's contention is that notice is in substantial compliance with Section 25-F and at any rate a hypertechnical approach cannot be adopted by the Court.
4. Section 25-F stipulates conditions for retrenching a workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. First condition is that the workman should be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment. In lieu of such notice he has to be paid wages for the period of notice. Second condition is that at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months should be paid to him. The third condition is that notice in the prescribed manner should be served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
5. The Industrial Disputes Rules had prescribed the notice as in Form P. As per Form P, the management has to explain the reasons for the retrenchment. It must also indicate that the workman concerned has been paid compensation under Section 25-F of the Act on such and such date. A copy of the notice in writing contemplated under Section 25-F(a) of the Act should also be enclosed as per Form P.
6. Section 25-F is a mandatory rule. The three conditions mentioned thereunder are cumulative. Admittedly, notice in the prescribed form (Form P) was not issued to the Government. Contention of the petitioner that issuance of such notice to the appropriate Government is only for statistical purpose and the failure to comply with it will not vitiate the action taken by the petitioner in retrenching the workman cannot be accepted as there is nothing in the section to hold that issuance of such notice as provided under Section 25-F(a) is only an empty formality. On a reading of Section 25-F it is not possible to hold that any departure from its mandatory requirements is only of little consequence. Reading of Section 25-F makes it beyond any controversy that a workman employed in an industrial undertaking cannot be retrenched by the employer unless the conditions precedent to it are complied with.
7. The Labour Court held that there is no evidence to prove that valid tender or offer to pay retrenchment compensation was made before effecting retrenchment. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact.
8. Contention of petitioner's counsel that thefirst respondent ought to have at least condonedthe delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte award and should have considered theentire matter takes us nowhere as no purposewill be served thereby in view of the categoricposition that the retrenchment of the secondrespondent was not effected in compliance withSection 25-F.
9. There is no merit in the original petition and hence the same is dismissed.