J.R. CHOPRA J.,—By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Award of the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 30.4.1988(Annexure-9) the learned Tribunal has held that the termination of the services of respondents No.2 to 81 is illegal because it has been done in non-compliance of s.25 F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has ordered that they be re-instated in service and be paid 50% of their back wages as compensation for the intervening period. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that management the respondents No.2 to 81 were working as work-charge employees in the U.I.T. ,Jodhpur. Earlier their services of 71 employees were terminated on 3.7.85. They filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1184 of 1985 and others before this Court and those writ petitions came to be decided by a common order dated 3.9.1985, whereby the writ employee was accepted and it was held that they petitions filed by the be reinstated in service because their termination has been brought about in non-compliance of Sec. 25(a) and (b) of the Act and consequently, all the employees whose services were terminated were re-employed but thereafter orders were passed by the U.I.T. Jodhpur terminating the services of the respondents vide order dated 23.9.1985. Their services were brought to an end with effect from 25.9.1985. It is alleged that alongwith their termination order on the cheque each was also enclosed whereby not only notice pay and compensation but other dues which were due against the U.I.T. were also included and their details were also mentioned on the back of when that order sought to be served on the emloyees, it is alleged that refused to take them. A note to that effect was made on each of the orders that the concerned persons have refused to take the termination order. A sample termination order as also a sample cheque have been filed marked as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to show that such an order was passed by the U.I.T. and that order was offered to the concerned respondents with the cheque for requisite amount but they refused to accept them . A sample termination order as also a sample cheque have been filed marked as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to show that such an order was passed by the U.I.T. and that order was offered to the concerned respondents with the cheque for requisite amount but they refused to accept them . When these orders and cheques were not accepted by the respondents, a notices was published in Jalte Deep (daily) date 22.10.1985 and Dainik Navjyoti (daily) dated 23.10.1985 that services of these employees have been terminated and they have not accepted the termination order as also the cheque and,.there fore, they may collect them for the Office of the U.I.T. 3. The respondents -employees whose services were terminated raised an industrial dispute. It is alleged that two of the persons whose services were terminated did not raise any dispute and they are Prithviram and Padmaram. As regards the remaining employees, a reference has been made to the learned Tribunal as to whether the termination of these employees was proper and valid and if it was not proper and valid then to which relief the employees are entitled? 4. The learned Tribunal after considering the documentary as wall as oral evidence produced in the case answered the reference in favour of the retrenched employees and held that their termination is illegal and has been brought about in no compliance of s.25-F(a) and (b) of the Act and consequently it has been ordered that they be re-instated in service with 50% of their back wages. 5. I have heard Mr.R.C. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-employees. 6. The contention of Mr. Maheshwari is that in this case, full compliance of s.25F(a) and (b) of the Act has been made. 5. I have heard Mr.R.C. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-employees. 6. The contention of Mr. Maheshwari is that in this case, full compliance of s.25F(a) and (b) of the Act has been made. In this context, he has submitted that the U.I.T. was very much cognizant of the fact that earlier the services of the some of the petitioners were terminated and a writ petition was filed by them and their termination has been set aside by this Court for non-compliance of s.25F(a)and (b) of the Act and, therefore, it took ample precautions to see that the provisions of s.25F(a) and (b) of the Act are complied with in the letter and Spirit and it was because of this that they draw the termination order on 23.9.1985 terminating the services of the respondents-employees with effect from 25.9.1985 and also issued the cheques of the amounts of notice pay as also of the compensation and other dues against the U.I.T., and the termination orders along with cheques were offered to the respondents-employees but they refused to take them and a note to that effect is there on the order, which has been filed in this case. Only a sample Cheque and same order have been filed in this case but all the copies off the orders and cheques have been filed before the learned Tribunal. 7. I have gone through the Award of the learned Tribunal. It transpires from the Award that of the respondents-employees filed their affidavits before the learned Tribunal. In those affidavits, the respondents-employees have submitted that they were neither offered the termination order nor offered the cheques of the amount of notice pay and Compensation. They did not refuse to accept the termination order and the cheques, Thus, the contention of the petitioners was refuted before the learned Tribunal by filing affidavits on oath by the respondents- employees that no such termination order was ever offered to them and they never refused to take them. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioners to prove that these termination orders along with cheques were offered to the respondents- employees. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioners to prove that these termination orders along with cheques were offered to the respondents- employees. They cannot rely on presumptiontion When presumption has been amply refuted by sworn testimony of the respondents-employees, the petitioners could have produced the persons who offered those termination order and cheques to the respondents-employees and before whom they refused to take those cheques and orders. When that has not been done by the petitioners, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking a view that no compliance of s.25F(a) and (b) has been made in this case. The subsequent notice which was published in Jalte Deep (Daily) on 22.10.1985 and Dainik Navjyoti (daily) on 23.10.1985 is of no avail. The compliance of s.25F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory. This compliances to be ensured prior to the retrenchment and unfortunately fortunately, it has not been so far as this case is concerned .It was the duty of the U.I.T. to prove that these orders and cheques were offered to the respondents and they refused to take them therefore, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the view that this termination cannot be sustained. 8. I see no illegality in the impugned Award. 9. Consequently, this writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs of this writ petition.