JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is a casual labourer under the South Eastern Railway. A notice was served on him on 21-8-1968 terminating his service one month thereafter. The notice did not contain the reasons why his service was terminated. The Petitioner's case is that be is 'a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, that the Industrial Disputes Act would govern his rights and liabilities and without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 his services bad been terminated, and as such it is bad and should be quashed. The Petitioner further wants a declaration that be is a temporary labourer and his service is not terminable without complying with Article 311 of the Constitution. Accordingly the writ application is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioner must succeed on the first point and we therefore consider it unnecessary to go into the second point. 3. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, runs thus: 25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less then 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 work man 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 fifteen days' 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 the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Under Clause (a) the workman is to be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and his service would be terminated after the period of notice has expired. Admittedly the workman has not been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice. Under Clause (a) the workman is to be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and his service would be terminated after the period of notice has expired. Admittedly the workman has not been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice. The provisions of clause (b) have not been complied with as stay order has been passed by this Court. It is the admitted case of both the parties that Section 25-F (c) has been complied with. 4. In Bombay Union of Journalists and Others Vs. The State of Bombay and Another it was laid down that Section 25-F(a) and (b) are mandatory, and Don-compliance thereof would vitiate the order of retrenchment. Clause (c) was held to be not a condition precedent. In this case the notice dated 21.8.1968 does not contain the reasons of the retrenchment as required under clause (a). 5. The question for consideration is whether non-mention of the reasons in the notice vitiates it. Mr. Pal contends that the provisions regarding mentioning reasons in the notice are merely directory and not mandatory. We are not prepared to accept this contention in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. Once clause (a) itself become mandatory, any requirement thereunder is equally mandatory. As the notice does not contain reasons it is bad as being contrary the Section 25-F(a). 6. We accordingly quash the notice dated 21-8-1968 by issuing a writ of certiorari and hold that the Petitioner is still continuing in service having the status which he had on the date of notice. The application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/- (one hundred). R.N. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed