- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. This petition is directed against the award dated 19-8-1985 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, U. P. , Allahabad.
(2.) THE Industrial Tribunal has held that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have not been complied and as such the action of retrenchment was not in accordance with law. THE notice of retrenchment dated 19-6-1984 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. While entertaining the writ petition by an interim order dated 14-5-1986, the workman was directed to be reinstated in employment forth with. The payment of past wages, however, remain stayed. Assailing the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice of retrench ment dated 19-6-1986 was served on 20-6-1986 alongwith the retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice, which was refused by the workman and thereafter it was sent by registered post at his home address. A report was submitted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, on 20-6-1984 to the Executive Engineer stating therein that the retrenchment notice was served upon the workman on 20-6- 984 but the workmen refused to accept the same and thereafter the notice has been sent by the registered post at his home address. It has further been stated that while serving the retrenchment notice on the workman, he was simultaneously offered one moth's wages in lieu of notice plus retrenchment compensation in full compliance of Section 6-N of the Act but as the workman in presence of S/sri Rajendra Awasthi, Junior Engineer and B. N. Singh Sub- Divisional Clerk, there was full compliance. The Executive Engineer by letter dated 22-6-1984 sent the retrenchment notice by registered post and the retrench ment compensation and wages in lieu of one month's notice by money order of the same date. The petitioners got the notice published in the news paper dated 23-7-184 'amrit Prabhat' intimating that the workman may collect the arrears due to him as he had refused when the money was offered to him. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the Industrial Tribunal grossly erred in holding that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the Act.
(3.) THE petitioner has placed on record a copy of notice of retrench ment dated 19-6-1984, contained in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. In this notice dated 19-6-1984, letter No. 1548 has been indicated and it is addressed to Prem Pratap Singh s/o Sri Hira Lal. 230 Purana Katra district Allahabad. THE notice further indicated that he was employed on muster roll and his services are being terminated with effect from 19-6-1984. THE workman was informed that he may collect his dues from the office. THE details of the dues were indicated as Rs. 1050 towards retrench ment compensate, Rs. 300 towards one month's pay in lieu of notice and salary amounting to is. 190 for the period 1-6-1984 to 19-6-1984, total Rs. 1540. THEre is a letter dated 20-6-1984 contained in annexure No. 3, addressed to the Executive Engineer Vidyut Janpad Nirman Khand,' Allahabad and the same has been sent by Up Khand Adhishasi, Vidyut Janpad Nirman, U. P. Khand-II, 57 George Town, Allahabad. ' In this letter it has been stated that Prem Pratap Singh, was served personally letter No. l548/m-16-dated 19-6-1984 on 20-6-1984 to which he refused and required the letter to be sent at his home address by registered post. It was pointed out that the above letter has been sent by the registered post. THE petitioners have also placed on record the details of the payment pre pared by them with regard to wages of the workman and the retrenchment compensation ate. On the payment voucher dated 19-6-1984, there is an endorsement dated 20-6-1984 that the workman Prem Pratap Singh refused to accept the money. THE above document further shows that the payment was sent by money order dated 20-6-1984. THE petitioners have also brought on record the notice sent to the State Government dated 19-6-1984 as required under Section 6-E read with Rule 42 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. From the averments made in the writ petition as also on the basis of the above documents, it is established that by retrenchment notice dated 19-6-1984, the services of the workman were retrenched with effect from 19-6-1984. It is further established that the above notice alongwith the retrenchment compensation and one month pay in lieu of notice was offered on 20-6-1984 but as the workman refused to accept the same ; it was remitted by the money order on 20-6-1986. In the above background of facts and material on record, it has to be seen whether there was compli ance of mandatory requirements of the provisions of Section 6-N (b) of the Act. The provisions of Section 6-N are quoted below- "6-N 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 retrench ed by that employed until- (a) the workmen 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 : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service : (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation, which shall be equivalent to the fifteen days'' average pay for every completed year of service, or (c) Any part thereof in excess of six months, and notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government ";