Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) Is a notice, under the prescribed proforma, to the State Government before retrenchment of a workman mandatory ? Should the retrenchment compensation be actually paid before retrenchment, or tendering the amount or information to the workman to collect the amount is sufficient compliance of the retrenchment? These, amongst the other questions, are involved in this writ petition. This is how they arise. FACTS
(2.) Sr! Ashiq All (the contesting respondent) was appointed as a helper In a pumping station on dally wages on 2.2.1990 in U. P. Jal Nigam (the Nigam for short). Subsequently, a decision was taken on 20.5.1991 by the Chairman of the Nigam that there are surplus persons working in the Nigam and persons appointed on dally wages after 31.8.1989 be retrenched. In pursuance of the decision, the services of the contesting respondent was retrenched on 20.7.1991. According to the Nigam, a notice was issued to the contesting respondent but could not be served as he was absent from his working place and it was pasted there (at his working place). Thereafter, the notice was sent by the registered post on 21.7.1991 and retrenchment compensation was also sent by the money order on 21.7.1991. The retrenchment compensation was received by the contesting respondent on 29.7.1991. The labour court initially passed an ex parte award, which was set aside in an earlier writ petition filed by the Nigam. After remand, the labour court has again reinstated the contesting respondent on the finding that : (1) no notice as required under section 6N (c) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (the Act for short) has been sent to the State Government ; (2) the order of the retrenchment has been passed by a Junior Engineer who was not the appointing authority. The Nigam and its Engineers have filed the present writ petition against this award. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(3.) I have heard Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Haider Zaidi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. Following points arise for determination in this case : (i) It is admitted that notice in the proforma as contemplated in Rule 42 has not been sent to the State Government. Only a copy of the notice of retrenchment to the contesting respondent has been sent to the State Government. Does it invalidate the retrenchment ? Is sending of a notice to the State Government in the prescribed proforma mandatory ? (ii) The services of the contesting respondents were terminated by the Junior Engineer. Was he competent to retrench the services of the contesting respondent ? (iii) The contesting respondent was retrenched on 20.7.1991. But the retrenchment compensation was received by him on 29.7.1991, Is it valid? Should the retrenchment compensation be actually paid before retrenchment or tendering the amount or information to collect the amount is sufficient compliance ? Is retrenchment Invalid on any other ground ? 1st POINT : IS NOTICE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT MANDATORY?;