ORDER K.M. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and (sic) to refer his dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication or in the alternative, a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate him with back wages, after quashing the order of discharge, dated 23-12-1976. It is not disputed that the petitioner was employed as a casual Jeep Driver since 19-10-1964 in the office of the Assistent Engineer (Doubling) South in Jhansi Division of Central Railway, Gwalior. His services were retrenched with effect from 31-12-1976due to completion of work. After the retrenchment, the petitioner filed an application u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter called the "Act"), before the respondent No. 1 for taking up his case in conciliation proceedings and if the employer did not agree to reinstate, to forward the case to the Labour Court for adjudication of his dispute. By his letter, dated 21-7-1977, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that his case was filed and that he was at liberty to approach the Labour Court at Jabalpur u/s 33C of the Act. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed this petition for the aforesaid relief. The petitioner's challenge to the validity of his retrenchment is based on the provisions of sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. It appears that none of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner found favour with the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the case started on the basis of his application u/s 2A of the Act was dropped. According to the petitioner, no notice or wages for the period of notice, as per requirement of section 25F(a) of the Act, was given to him. The only notice or the order of discharge received by him was Annexure 'P-7', dated 23-12-1976, which did not fulfil the requirements of section 25F(a) of the Act. However, according to the respondents 2 to 4, retrenchment notice, dated 23/25-11-1976 was served on the petitioner on 25-11-1976 and his acknowledgement was also obtained on 25-11-1976. To counteract this submission of the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner has made following allegations in paragraph 5 of his petition:- '5. However, according to the respondents 2 to 4, retrenchment notice, dated 23/25-11-1976 was served on the petitioner on 25-11-1976 and his acknowledgement was also obtained on 25-11-1976. To counteract this submission of the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner has made following allegations in paragraph 5 of his petition:- '5. That the petitioner having failed to get relief from the Railway Authorities submitted an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhopal, non-petitioner No. 1 u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, on 5-3-1977, the copy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure P-10. The Assistant Labour Commissioner fixed the date and came to Gwalior on 28-3-1977 regarding this dispute. The then Assistant Engineer Shri R.S. Gupta met him and tried to be in intimate terms with him. The petitioner kept waiting outside the room and Shri Gupta showed some papers to A.L.C. (non-petitioner No. 1), behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know later on that he had struck off some part of a paper from the petitioner's some application and attached it with the so-called retrenchment notice dated 26-11-1976 to show that the petitioner had received it and signed it. Shri Gupta also produced one other document written by some other person, but petitioner's signature was attached by striking from some application of the petitioner and pasting it on additional paper, to show that the petitioner himself wanted to receive the retrenchment compensation on 4-1-1977. In my view, there is no merit in the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner. Annexure 'P-7' is neither a notice nor an order of discharge. On the contrary, it is a certificate, which appears to have been granted to the petitioner on his own request. It reads as follows:- This is to certify that Shri Ramakant Shankar Rao has worked as Motor Driver in this Department. He joined in this capacity on 19-10-1964 and is, going to be retrenched from service with effect from 31-12-1976 due to (sic) of all works. He has been found quite sincere, hard working and honest during his service period. I wish him every success in his life. From the contents of the document, Annexure 'P-7', it appears (hat the petitioner had prior notice about the date of his retrenchment and therefore, he had approached the officer concerned for the said certificate. He has been found quite sincere, hard working and honest during his service period. I wish him every success in his life. From the contents of the document, Annexure 'P-7', it appears (hat the petitioner had prior notice about the date of his retrenchment and therefore, he had approached the officer concerned for the said certificate. Before making an application u/s 2A of the Act to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had served the respondents 2 to 4 with his notice, dated 5-2-1977 (Annexure 'P-8'). In para 2 of their reply, dated 21-2-1977 (Annexure 'P-9'), respondents 2 to 4 had specifically asserted that the petitioner "was served an advance notice on 25-11-1976 for his likely retrenchment as on 31-12-1976 as the office of Assistant Engineer (Doubling) Gwalior was to be wound up by this date. Nothing was said about this plea of the respondents 2 to 4 in the petitioner's application u/s 2A of the Act, though the reply was admittedly received by him well before the date of lodging the said application with the respondent No. 1. Letter No. AEN/D/CL/General/361, dated 23/25-11-1976 (Annexure 'R-3'), filed by the respondents 2 to 4 is the retrenchment notice, which was served on the petitioner on 25-11-1976. This gives the reason as well as the date for retrenchment. It fully complies with the legal requirements of section 25F(a) of the Act. Annexure 'R-7' is the photo copy of the petitioner's acknowledgement about receipt of the retrenchment notice. It reads as follows:- L. No. AEN/D/CL/Gen./361 DtA 23-11-1976 on Recd. 25-11-1976. Ramakant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid documents should not be taken into consideration, because they were filed only on 14-9-1984. when the case was fixed for arguments. It was also submitted that they were not the originals, but only copies and as their genuineness was disputed, they should not be accepted in the absence of their originals. It is. no doubt, true that the documents filed on 14-9-1984, but that alone is not sufficient to reject the said documents. They were relied on and referred to as Annexures to the return. Yet they were not filed along with the return, either due to over-sight or some negligence on the part of the counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. no doubt, true that the documents filed on 14-9-1984, but that alone is not sufficient to reject the said documents. They were relied on and referred to as Annexures to the return. Yet they were not filed along with the return, either due to over-sight or some negligence on the part of the counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. It was also a negligence on the part of the Registry of this Court in not pointing out the said omission of the counsel at the time of accepting the return or at any time thereafter. The counsel for the petitioner cannot as well shake of his responsibility in this regard. Soon after receipt of a copy of the return, he ought to have moved an application for directing the respondents 2 to 4 to file the documents referred to in their return. For all these reasons, the objection to the late filing of the documents deserves to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. In view of the fact that the genuineness of the documents was disputed by the petitioner. I would have directed the respondents 2 to 4 to produce the originals of the said documents. However, I did not think it proper to do so, because there was ample material to prove their genuineness. The certificate, Annexure 'P-7' obtained by the petitioner presupposes prior knowledge of the petitioner about the date of his retrenchment, otherwise there was no occasion for him to obtain such a certificate. The basis of this prior knowledge must be in the retrenchment notice, dated 23/25-11-1976 (Annexure 'R-3'). The fact about service of this retrenchment notice on the petitioner was asserted by the respondents 2 to 4 by their reply, dated 21-2-1977 (Annexure 'P-9') to the petitioner's notice, dated 5-2-1977 (Annexure "P-8") i.e., soon after the dispute was raised by the petitioner. No reference to this fact was made by the petitioner in his application u/s 2A of the Act filed before the respondent No. 1. The documents. Annexure 'R-7' is the photocopy of the acknowledgement made by the petitioner about receipt of the retrenchment notice. It is too much to believe that to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claims, an officer of the rank of an Assistant Engineer would go to the extent of fabricating documents with no personal benefits to him. The documents. Annexure 'R-7' is the photocopy of the acknowledgement made by the petitioner about receipt of the retrenchment notice. It is too much to believe that to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claims, an officer of the rank of an Assistant Engineer would go to the extent of fabricating documents with no personal benefits to him. According to the allegations in petition para 5, the retrenchment notice and its acknowledgement were brought into existence on 28-3-1976. but their existence was asserted by the respondents 2 to 4 as back as on 21-2-1976 by their reply, Annexure 'P-9'. And lastly, the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the petition do not disclose the source of first hand information given to the petitioner about what transpired between the Assistant Engineer and the respondent No.1 on 28-3-1977 in his absence. All these facts go to show the frivolity of the petitioner's allegations about non-receipt of the retrenchment notice, dated 23/25-11-1976. They further lime-light the falsity of the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the petition. Consequently, I hold that the petitioner was served with the retrenchment notice on 25-11-1976. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per requirement of section 25F(b) of the Act, the retrenchment compensation was not paid on the date of retrenchment, but was paid subsequently on 4-1-1977. This rendered the retrenchment illegal. Refuting the plea of the respondents 2 to 4 that the petitioner himself had volunteered to receive the payment of compensation on 4-1-1977 by writing his letter, dated 1-1-1977 (Annexure 'R-2'), the learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:- (i) The said letter. Annexure 'R-2' was not in his handwriting. (ii) The letter was a fake document, which was brought into existence in the manner stated in petition para 5. (iii) Assuming that the contents of the letter. Annexure 'R-2' were true, the offer to receive the compensation was made on 1-1-1977, i.e. one day after the date of retrenchment. This did not either improve the case of the respondent 2 to 4 or cure the legal infirmity. (iv) The retrenchment compensation was not offered at Gwalior. He was asked to collect it from Jhansi. Annexure 'R-2' were true, the offer to receive the compensation was made on 1-1-1977, i.e. one day after the date of retrenchment. This did not either improve the case of the respondent 2 to 4 or cure the legal infirmity. (iv) The retrenchment compensation was not offered at Gwalior. He was asked to collect it from Jhansi. Hence, he was within his right in refusing to go to Jhansi for the purpose of receiving the payment of compensation and in requesting to make the payment, at any subsequent date, at Gwalior. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner hold no waters. Although the compensation was actually paid on 4-1-1977, it was offered to the petitioner on the date of retrenchment, which was not accepted by him. Under these circumstances. I hold that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 25F(b) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not disputed his signature on the letter, Annexure 'R-2' but his grievance is that its contents are not in his writing. No law requires that a document must be scribed by the executant himself. Consequently, even if the petitioner's said contention is held to be true, it would make no difference as to the effect of the document, Annexure 'R-2', So far as its genuineness is concerned, it cannot be doubted for the very reasons stated by me for holding the retrenchment notice. Annexure 'R-3' and its acknowledgement. Annexure 'R-7' as genuine documents. The retrenchment notice. Annexure 'R-3' recites that the retrenchment was to be effective from 31-12-1976, which must be interpreted to mean effective from the mid-night of 31-12-1976, i.e., from 1-1-1977. The reason is that even according to the petitioner, he was treated to be on duty on 31-12-1976 and was paid his wages for 31-12-1976. These facts find support from the contents of petition para 2 and from the attendance record. Annexure 'P-2'. Further, in the last but one sentence of his notice, dated 5-2-1977, Annexure 'P-8', it has been stated that his "services were terminated w.e.f. 1-1-1977". In the light of these facts, my conclusion is that the compensation was offered to the petitioner on the date of retrenchment and not on a day thereafter, as alleged by him. Annexure 'P-2'. Further, in the last but one sentence of his notice, dated 5-2-1977, Annexure 'P-8', it has been stated that his "services were terminated w.e.f. 1-1-1977". In the light of these facts, my conclusion is that the compensation was offered to the petitioner on the date of retrenchment and not on a day thereafter, as alleged by him. Neither in his application u/s 2A of the Act filed before the respondent No. 1, nor in his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has alleged that he refused to accept the compensation, because he was asked to collect the same from Jhansi. When the payment was made at Gwalior, on 4-1-1977. the petitioner accepted the same without objection, apparently because he himself had volunteered to accept the amount of compensation on 4-1-1977 or 5-1-1977, i.e., on the date of disbursement of salaries to the regular staff. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on National Iron & Steel Co. v. State of W.B. ( AIR 1967 S.C. 1206 ) in support of his contention that a direction to receive the payment from Jhansi could not be made to him, when he was posted at Gwalior. However, I find no such suggestion in the decision of the Supreme Court. In the result, I hold that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner on the date of his retrenchment in accordance with section 25F(b) of the Act. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the procedure prescribed u/s 25G of the Act for retrenchment was not followed by the respondents 2 to 4 and, therefore, his (sic) was illegal. According to him, many juniors were retained in service, but the senior man like the petitioner was retrenched in utter disregard with the provisions of section 25G. In their return paragraph (v)(h)(f), the respondents 2 to 4 have asserted that at the time of his retrenchment, the petitioner was the only Jeep Driver under the Assistant Engineer (Doubling) Central Railway, Gwalior. They have further asserted in paragraph 3 of their reply to grounds of petition that the seniority of casual workers was maintained unit-wise and not division-wise and that in the unit of Assistant Engineer (Doubling) Gwalior, the petitioner was the only person available for retrenchment. They have further asserted in paragraph 3 of their reply to grounds of petition that the seniority of casual workers was maintained unit-wise and not division-wise and that in the unit of Assistant Engineer (Doubling) Gwalior, the petitioner was the only person available for retrenchment. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any violation of section 25G of the Act by the respondents 2 to 4. It was lastly contended that the respondents 2 to 4 were bound to give an opportunity of re-employment to the petitioner, when they proposed to take into employment one Vedram subsequent to his retrenchment, as provided in section 25H of the Act. According to him, Vedram was employed as a Jeep Driver without giving him an opportunity to offer his services for the said post in accordance with section 25H. According to me, this question cannot be examined in the absence of Vedram, who is not a respondent in this petition. I, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the point. As a result of my aforesaid discussions, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed