JUDGMENT 1. - These four writ petitions have been filed in this Court by workmen who were employed as work charge employees in the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan and were working in the Rajasthan Canal Project. As similar questions of law arise in these cases, I propose to dispose them of by a common order. 2. Parumal petitioner in writ petition No. 2070 of 1973 and Benarsilal petitioner in writ petition No. 2072 of 1973 were employed as Fitters in the Rajasthan Canal Project, Mechanical Circle, while Jamna Ram petitioner in civil writ petition No. 2071 of 1973 was employed as a Lineman in the same project. Harbanslal petitioner in writ petition No. 2456 of 1974 was working as a Chargeman (Electrical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project Workshop. All the aforesaid four petitioners were thus work charge employees of the State and were working in the Mechanical Division of the Rajasthan Canal Project and were `workmen' within the definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", the services of all the four petitioners were dispensed with as they were served with retrechment notices for a period of one month. 3. The petitioners have challenged the termination of their services by means of these writ petitions and one of the principal grounds which has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of section 25F of the Act were not complied with by the employer while dispensing with the services of the petitioner. The grievance of these petitioners is that the retrenchment compensation, as specified in section 25F (b) of the Act, was not paid to the petitioners simultaneously with the termination of their services. The services of the petitioners Parumal, Benarsilal and Jamna Ram were dispensed with by retrenchment notices which were served upon them on May 15, 1973. According to the said notices of the retrenchment, the services of the aforesaid three petitioners stood terminated on the expiry of one month, effect from June 14, 1973. However, in the case of Parumal and Benarsilal petitioners the retrenchment compensation was paid on June 16, 1973, while in the case of Jam Ram petitioner the amount of salary was paid on May 15, 1973, while the amount of retrenchment compensation was paid on June 25, 1973. However, in the case of Parumal and Benarsilal petitioners the retrenchment compensation was paid on June 16, 1973, while in the case of Jam Ram petitioner the amount of salary was paid on May 15, 1973, while the amount of retrenchment compensation was paid on June 25, 1973. In this respect the case of the respondents is that petitioner Jamna Ram refused to accept the amount of retrenchment compensation while it was offered to him along with the payment of his salary. In respect of all the three aforesaid petitioners the case set up by the respondent State and its others is that the amounts of compensation of the three petitioners were passed for payment on June 14, 1973" It has further been stated that the amount were offered but the petitioners refused to accept it. The reply of the respondents is extremely vague on the question as to when the amount of retrenchment compensation was offered to the three petitioners, but from the wireless message, a copy of which has been produced along with reply in Parumil's case, it appears that the amount of compensation was offered on June 16, 1973. So far as the petitioner Harbanslal is concerned the termination of his service came into effect from May 29, 1973 while the amount of retrenchment compensation was paid to him on May 31, 1973. Thus from the facts stated above, it is quite clear that in the case of the four petitioners the amount of retrenchment compensation was not tendered or paid to any one of them simultaneously with the termination of their services. In case of each one of the petitioners, the retrenchment notice issued for a period of one month in accordance with the provisions of (cl) (a) of section 25F of the Act came to an end prior to the date the amount of retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 25F was paid or even tendered to him. 4. 4. Section 25F of the Act requires that in order to bring about a termination of the service of a workman employed in an industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year, three things have to be done by the employer simultaneously : (a) One month's notice in writing, indicating the reasons for retrenchment, or wages for the notice period in lieu of such notice; (b) payment of compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice to the appropriate Government in the prescribed manner. 5. It is well established that the requirement to pay compensation for retrenchment is a mandatory condition as provided in section 25F and it is also implict therein that the amount of retrenchment compensation has to be paid at "the time of retrencnment". If the workmen is asked to go and his services are terminated by the expiry of one month's notice of retrenchment or on payment of one month's emoluments in lieu thereof but the retrenchment compensation is not paid or offered to be paid simultaneously along with the termination of his service, then the order of retrenchment is bad in law and is invalid and inoperative. The law in this respect has teen clearly laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court that even if retrenchment compensation is paid or offered to be paid after termination of the service has been brought about by the expiry of the retrenchment notice, then such a subsequent payment cannot validate the termination of service of the workman concerned, even if the workmen accepts such subsequent payment of the retrenchment compensation. In view of this clear position of law it must be held that the orders of termination of the services of the petitioners by way of retrenchment are invalid and incoperative as the retrenchment compensation in case of each one of the petitioners was paid subsequent to the expiry of the period of the notice of retrenchment. It is an admitted fact that all the four petitioners were in continuous service for a period of more than one year. 6. It is an admitted fact that all the four petitioners were in continuous service for a period of more than one year. 6. In view of this finding it is not necessary to consider the other sub- missions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as these petitioners succeed on this question of non-payment of retrenchment compensation upto the date of termination of the service of the petitioner concerned, which is a contravention of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the four writ petitions are allowed the order of retrenchment in the case of each one of the four petitioner is set aside and it is declared that they continue to hold their respective posts in the service of the State Government. The petitioners would also be entitled to get their emoluments and all other benefits for the entire period from the date of the illegal termination of their services upto the date they are restored to their respective posts. In the circumstances of these cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Writs allowed. *******