JUDGMENT 1. - Although manifold contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition which involves a challenge to the retrenchment of petitioner from the service of Forest Department brought about with effect from 15.11.92, in my opinion it is not necessary to make an adjudication on all the points because I am of the considered opinion that the impugned retrenchment of petitioner which has been brought about by Annexure R.1 dated 13.11.92 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Sawaimadhopur, deserves to be quashed only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Facts of the case, which have come on record, show that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar (daily wager) on 1.8.90 and he served the Department under the Deputy Conservator of Forests Social Forestry, Sawaimadhopur till the date of termination of his service. Petitioner's plea is that before terminating his service, which amounts to retrenchment provisions of Section 25-F of 1947 Act have not been complied with. Another plea of petitioner is that principle of last come first go has not been followed and yet another plea is that persons similarly situated have been retained in service. 3. Respondents have made an attempt to justify the retrenchment of petitioner by stating that on account of the non-availability of work, action for retrenchment of service of the petitioner was taken by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Sawaimadhopur. A draft for sum of Rs. 1144 towards notice pay and retrenchment compensation was prepared by the office. The petitioner refused to accept the notice of retrenchment as well as the draft meant for the notice pay and retrenchment compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A look at Annexure R.1 show that retrenchment of the petitioner and another workman was made effective from 15.11.92. It is true that the notice Annexure R. I makes a mention of payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 1144 and a draft dated 13.11.92 for the aforesaid amount had been prepared by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Sawaimadhopur, Annexure R.2 unmistakably shows that notice of retrenchment together with the draft was offered to the petitioner for the first time on 16.11.92 i.e. after the retrenchment of petitioner became effective on 15.11.92. 1144 and a draft dated 13.11.92 for the aforesaid amount had been prepared by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Sawaimadhopur, Annexure R.2 unmistakably shows that notice of retrenchment together with the draft was offered to the petitioner for the first time on 16.11.92 i.e. after the retrenchment of petitioner became effective on 15.11.92. This fact situation leads to an irresistible conclusion that the notice pay and retrenchment compensation had not been offered to the petitioner before or at the time of retrenchment of petitioner. 5. In a similar fact situation the Labour Court, Jaipur quashed the retrenchment of 139 employees of the Mechanical Workshop of R.S.R.T.C. The employer assailed the award passed by the Labour Court and in R.S.R.T.C. v. Judge, Labour Court, 1984 RLR 981, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that where retrenchment was made effective from 1.6.82 and the employer had remitted the amount of salary and retrenchment compensation on 1.6.82 in the evening, no valid retrenchment had come into existence. After making detailed analysis of the provisions of Section 25-F(a) and (b) as well as Section 33(2)(b) of 1947 Act, the learned Single Judge declared that the provisions contained in Section 25-F of 1947 Act are mandatory and if the two conditions enumerated in Section 25-F(a) and (b) are not fulfilled on or before or at the time of retrenchment, the retrenchment will have to be treated as non-est, void, ab initio and nullity and the workman will be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service. 6. Earlier to this a Division Bench of this Court had in Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. M. P. Dave, 1975 RLW 131 (Rajasthan) ruled that retrenchment of service of a workman brought about in contravention of Section 25-F never terminates the service of the workman. The relationship of master and servant does not cease and the workman had a right to be reinstated with benefit of continuity in service. 7. Since in the case in hand the retrenchment of the workman was brought about with effect from 15.11.92 and offer of notice pay and retrenchment compensation was made a day thereafter, it has to be held that the retrenchment was made effective in contravention of Section 25-F(a) and (b) and for that reason the retrenchment of petitioner is liable to be declared as void.Hence the writ petition is allowed. Retrenchment with effect from 15.11.92 is declared to be void and it is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with benefit of continuity in service. However, in so far as back wages are concerned, the petitioner shall be free to avail remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If he makes such an application, it shall be open to the respondents to plead and prove that the workman was gainfully employed after 15.11.92 and, therefore, he is not entitled to whole or part of the back wages. It is also made clear that if on account of non-availability of work it becomes necessary for the respondents to effect retrenchment of the workman, they should do so only after full compliance of the provisions of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B and R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Workcharged Employees' Service Rules, 1964 as well as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Petition allowed. *******