S.K. JHA, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed on behalf of the 23 petitioners each of them having paid separate set of Court-fees. The prayer made in the writ application for issuance of appropriate writ quashing Annexure-3 which is a sample copy of the notice of retrenchment served on the petitioners dated the 4th February, 1976. By the impugned Annexure the petitioners have been informed that their services would be terminated on the 5th March, 1976 afternoon due to reduction in the work load. It has further been directed therein that the petitioners would be paid their dues under the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the 7th March, 1976. This fact has been reiterated a second time in these terms. "You are hereby directed to receive the above payment at BKSC on 7.3.76" 2. Although Mr. B.C. Ghosh learned counsel for the petitioners raised a number of points but for the reasons hereinafter to be given I think the fate of this case will turn on a very short and simple point. But before focusing my attention to that point it is worth while to mention that learned counse1 for the petitioners' argument was that the impugned notice of retrenchment was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 25C, 25F and 25G of the Act read with the Rule 149 of the Railway Establishment Code. This application must succeed on the short point of violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to travel to the provisions of Section 25C and 25G of the Act. So far as Rule) 149 of the Railway Code is concerned it makes the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act applicable to the Railway employees, which the petitioners are. It is well settled by now that the provisions of section 25F (a) and (b) are mandatory in nature non-compliance of the provisions of which will render the notice of retrenchment or the retrenchment itself invalid (c. f. The State of Bombay & others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others and The State Bank of India Vs. Shri N. Sundara Money. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others and The State Bank of India Vs. Shri N. Sundara Money. So far as Section 25F (c) of the Act is concerned although previously there were some obiter dicta of the Supreme Court in a few decision with regard to their mandatory character but now it has been settled in Bombay Union of Journalist and others Vs. The State of Bombay and others, that the provisions of sub-section (c) of Section 25F are not conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workmen. I would, therefore, give my reason as to why the notice of retrenchment, a sample of which is Annexure-3, is in contravention of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act. Although the notice served upon the petitioners on the 4th of February, 1976, as was contended by Mr. S.C. Ghose learned senior counsel for the respondents and it speaks of the date of retrenchment as the 5th March, 1976 the workmen as has already been stated above have been directed to receive their payment on the 7th of March, 1976. Sub-section (b) of section 25F dearly lays down that no workman employed in any industry shall be retrenched by the employer until the workman had been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation as stipulated in the said statutory provisions. The impugned notice clearly indicates that payment is not to be made at the time of retrenchment but two days subsequent thereto. It, therefore, is in clear contravention of sub-section (b) of Section 25F. Before I turn to subsection (a) it is worth while to notice the argument put forward by Mr. S.C. Ghose for the respondents. Mr. Ghose contended that the workmen were all paid their dues on the 5th March, 1976 in the fore-noon and, that, therefore, the notice (Annexure-3) should be ignored. If that be the position, although we are merely proceeding upon the assumption that such payments were made on the 5th March. 1976, for it is not necessary to give a finding in that regard, then already there has been a violation of the second part of subsection (a) of section 25F which enjoins the employer in case of a notice is served to pay to the workmen in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice i.e. one months' wages. If the notice served on the petitioner is to be ignored as has been argued by Mr. S.C. Ghose then clearly on the 5th of March, 1976 when the payment is alleged to have been made to them no payment has been made in lieu of one month's notice. Learned counsel for the respondents faced with this difficulty made an alternative submission to the effect that since the workmen had been retrenched on the expiry of the period of one month as given in the notice (Annexure-3), therefore, the second part of sub-section (a) would not be attracted in this case and the first part of sub-section (a) stands fulfilled. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, which I am presently to refer, I am not inclined to accept this submission. There are two important dates and facts which have to be mentioned while dealing with this aspect of the case. The petitioners filed this writ application on the 1st of March, 1976 challenging the validity of the notice of retrenchment. On the 4th of March, 1976 when a rule Nisi was issued in this case an interim order of stay as passed by a Bench of this court and it was further observed therein that- "It is, however, made clear that acceptance of retrenchment compensation under Annexure-3 will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners." A notice in the stay matter was duly served on the respondents and Mr. P.K. Bose learned counsel for the respondent, assisting Mr. S.C. Ghose today, appeared and argued in the stay matter on the 30th of March. 1976. On that date after hearing Counsel for both parties the Bench made the stay of operation of Annexure-3 terminating the services of the petitioners with effect from 5th March, 1976 and directing them to receive the retrenchment compensation on the 7th of March 1976 absolute. It is strange that in spite of this court's order directing that the order of retrenchment be not given effect to during the pendency of this application the petitioners have not been till today absorbed by the respondents. This action of theirs does not credit to them. It is strange that in spite of this court's order directing that the order of retrenchment be not given effect to during the pendency of this application the petitioners have not been till today absorbed by the respondents. This action of theirs does not credit to them. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have received the retrenchment compensation without any prejudice to their rights under orders of this Court then it is well settled that they cannot be mace to suffer on that account for it is well settled 'legal maxim-actus curioe neminem gravabit, (acts of court prejudice none). It is, therefore futile on the part of the respondent to argue that since they have received the retrenchment compensation on the 5th of March, 1976 they should now be either estopped or precluded from challenging the validity of their retrenchment. 3. Learned counsel for the parties also addressed us on some questions of fact. I advisedly refrain from entering into any question of fact for the case is fully covered by question of law discussed above. It is needless to traverse those grounds learned counsel for that respondents also sought to impress upon us that there was, in fact, no infirmity in the order of retrenchment. On facts Mr. B.C. Ghose learned counsel for the petitioners has net addressed us at all. 4. For the reasons set forth above the notices served on each of the petitioners a sample copy of which has been marked as Annexure-3 have to be quashed and the order of retrenchment passed against them must be held to be Invalid. This application is, accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to cost. Application allowed.