Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition is listed today for decision with the spirit of Lok Adalat.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company challenging the validity of the ward dated 23.1.2014 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby the Judge, Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent workman and while quashing the order of termination w.e.f. 5.2.2009 passed an order of reinstatement with 50% back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur with regard to non -compliance of Section 25 -F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act is totally erroneous and perverse because by cogent evidence it is proved by the petitioner firm that before terminating the services of the respondent workman, compliance of Section 25 -F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act was made but respondent workman himself refused to accept the notice and amount of compensation, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : 2003 (4) SCC 619 (Pramod Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and submits that if employer direct the employee to collect the retrenchment compensation and notice from the Divisional Office and employee fails to do so, then it will be deemed that there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 25 -F of the ID Act and as per the facts of this case, the retrenchment compensation was offered but respondent workman himself refused to accept the same, therefore, the award impugned may be quashed.;