JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of similar facts and involve common questions of law and are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners seek to challenge their retrenchment from the Orissa State Electricity Board effected by an order in Anncxure-1. The order passed on 19-7-1983 shows the services of the petitioners being terminated as being no longer required with effect from 1-8-1983. The orders were forwarded to the petitioners on 25-7-1983. 2. Mr. M.R. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners has, in assailing the orders, urged two contentions, namely, such retrenchment being violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also of Section 25N of the same Act. So far as the second submission is concerned, even though there is no dispute about the fact that Section 25N of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the Orissa State Electricity Board by virtue of Section 25K of the Act, yet absolutely no averment having been made in the writ petitions regarding any violation of the provisions of Section 25N, it is not possible to accept the submission of the order having contravened the provisions of the section entitling the petitioner to any relief on that account. 3. As regards the first submission, it has been urged in the writ petitions that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with inasmuch as no notice as required under Sub-section (a) of the section was given nor any compensation in lieu thereof was offered in accordance with law nor any compensation as required u/s 25F(b) was also paid. It has been further averred that no notice of retrenchment as required u/s 25F(c), was also given to the State Government or its authorised officer. Such facts stated in the writ petitions are not countered in the counter affidavit filed and on the contrary it appears from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit that even though the retrenchments were made effective from 1-8-1983, yet by the order passed on 1-8-1983 compensations were directed to be paid on the next day i.e. on 2-8-1983. Such facts stated in the writ petitions are not countered in the counter affidavit filed and on the contrary it appears from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit that even though the retrenchments were made effective from 1-8-1983, yet by the order passed on 1-8-1983 compensations were directed to be paid on the next day i.e. on 2-8-1983. The orders were communicated to the Sub-divisional Officer (Electrical) to the E.S.O. Sukinda and there is no evidence as to when the orders were communicated to the petitioners and when they were called upon to receive the compensations. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the Annexure-C itself that compensations have not been paid prior to the retrenchments which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, there is no denial of the fact that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25F in effecting the retrenchments. 4. Mr. G. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, however urged that the writ petitions are to be thrown out in limine and placing reliance on Basanta Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. Eagle Rolling Mills and Ors. AIR 1961 S.C. 1260: 1964(2) LLJ 105 contended that since the violation of the statute as alleged is that of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is a proper matter which should be canvassed before the forum designated under the Act and the petitioners should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in that regard. In the decision it was no doubt held that regardless to the amplitude of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the High Court, yet where questions relating to industrial disputes of the nature as discussed in that case are raised, it is more appropriate that the forums designated under the Act should adjudicate the disputes. In that case the industrial disputes to be adjudicated related to investigation of the disputed questions of fact for which the High Court under Article 226 was without question not properly equipped. In that case the industrial disputes to be adjudicated related to investigation of the disputed questions of fact for which the High Court under Article 226 was without question not properly equipped. But so far as the present case is concerned, there is absolutely no dispute regarding the fact and it being the admitted position that neither the notices as required u/s 25F(a) nor the compensations in lieu thereof, or the compensations as required u/s 25F(b) were paid, and the notices u/s 25F(c) were not given, there is no inherent bar for this Court to exercise jurisdiction and hence the objection raised by Mr. Rath has no substance. 5. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the retrenchments of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 in all the cases are quashed and the petitioners should be deemed to be continuing in service. They shall be entitled to all the service benefits permissible under the Rules. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. A.K. Padhi, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed