S. C. VERMA, J. This petition is directed against the award dated 19-8-1985 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, U. P. , Allahabad. 2. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have not been complied and as such the action of retrenchment was not in accordance with law. The notice of retrenchment dated 19-6-1984 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. 3. While entertaining the writ petition by an interim order dated 14-5-1986, the workman was directed to be reinstated in employment forth with. The payment of past wages, however, remain stayed. 4. Assailing the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice of retrench ment dated 19-6-1986 was served on 20-6-1986 alongwith the retrenchment compensation and one months pay in lieu of notice, which was refused by the workman and thereafter it was sent by registered post at his home address. A report was submitted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, on 20-6-1984 to the Executive Engineer stating therein that the retrenchment notice was served upon the workman on 20-6- 984 but the workmen refused to accept the same and thereafter the notice has been sent by the registered post at his home address. It has further been stated that while serving the retrenchment notice on the workman, he was simultaneously offered one moths wages in lieu of notice plus retrenchment compensation in full compliance of Section 6-N of the Act but as the workman in presence of S/sri Rajendra Awasthi, Junior Engineer and B. N. Singh Sub- Divisional Clerk, there was full compliance. The Executive Engineer by letter dated 22-6-1984 sent the retrenchment notice by registered post and the retrench ment compensation and wages in lieu of one months notice by money order of the same date. The petitioners got the notice published in the news paper dated 23-7-1^84 amrit Prabhat intimating that the workman may collect the arrears due to him as he had refused when the money was offered to him. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the Industrial Tribunal grossly erred in holding that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. 5. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the Industrial Tribunal grossly erred in holding that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. 5. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of notice of retrench ment dated 19-6-1984, contained in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. In this notice dated 19-6-1984, letter No. 1548 has been indicated and it is addressed to Prem Pratap Singh s/o Sri Hira Lal. 230 Purana Katra district Allahabad. The notice further indicated that he was employed on muster roll and his services are being terminated with effect from 19-6-1984. The workman was informed that he may collect his dues from the office. The details of the dues were indicated as Rs. 1050 towards retrench ment compensate, Rs. 300 towards one months pay in lieu of notice and salary amounting to is. 190 for the period 1-6-1984 to 19-6-1984, total Rs. 1540. There is a letter dated 20-6-1984 ^contained in annexure No. 3, addressed to the Executive Engineer Vidyut Janpad Nirman Khand, Allahabad and the same has been sent by Up Khand Adhishasi, Vidyut Janpad Nirman, U. P. Khand-II, 57 George Town, Allahabad. In this letter it has been stated that Prem Pratap Singh, was served personally letter No. l548/m-16-dated 19-6-1984 on 20-6-1984 to which he refused and required the letter to be sent at his home address by registered post. It was pointed out that the above letter has been sent by the registered post. The petitioners have also placed on record the details of the payment pre pared by them with regard to wages of the workman and the retrenchment compensation ate. On the payment voucher dated 19-6-1984, there is an endorsement dated 20-6-1984 that the workman Prem Pratap Singh refused to accept the money. The above document further shows that the payment was sent by money order dated 20-6-1984. The petitioners have also brought on record the notice sent to the State Government dated 19-6-1984 as required under Section 6-E read with Rule 42 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. 6. From the averments made in the writ petition as also on the basis of the above documents, it is established that by retrenchment notice dated 19-6-1984, the services of the workman were retrenched with effect from 19-6-1984. 6. From the averments made in the writ petition as also on the basis of the above documents, it is established that by retrenchment notice dated 19-6-1984, the services of the workman were retrenched with effect from 19-6-1984. It is further established that the above notice alongwith the retrenchment compensation and one month pay in lieu of notice was offered on 20-6-1984 but as the workman refused to accept the same ; it was remitted by the money order on 20-6-1986. In the above background of facts and material on record, it has to be seen whether there was compli ance of mandatory requirements of the provisions of Section 6-N (b) of the Act. The provisions of Section 6-N are quoted below- "6-N Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrench ed by that employed until- (a) the workmen has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service : (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation, which shall be equivalent to the fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service, or (c) Any part thereof in excess of six months, and notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government " 7. The Honble Supreme Court relying on the case of Devidayal Nanak chand Sharma y. State Industrial Court Nagpur, 1961 (1) Labour Law Journal 167, in which Mudholkar and Kotwal, JJ. have observed as follows :- "the heading of Section 25-F leaver no doubt that the observance of the provisions thereof is a condition precedent to retrench ment of a workman to whom the section applies. It would, therefore, follow that before action could be taken under Stand ing Order 23, the provisions of Section 25-F had to be complied with. It is not disputed that these provisions have not been complied with. In the circumstances, therefore, respondent No. 3 does not get the benefit of Standing Order 23. 8. It would, therefore, follow that before action could be taken under Stand ing Order 23, the provisions of Section 25-F had to be complied with. It is not disputed that these provisions have not been complied with. In the circumstances, therefore, respondent No. 3 does not get the benefit of Standing Order 23. 8. Learned Judges also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case, of State- of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, I960 (1), Labour Law Journal 251, in which Honble Gajendragadkar, J. observed as follows :- "section 25-F (b) provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until he has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service of any part -. thereof in excess of six months. Clauses (a) and (c) of the said section prescribe similar conditions but we are not concerned with them. On a plain reading of Section 25-F (b) it is clear that the requirement prescribed by it is a condition precedent for the retrenchment of the workman. The section provides that no workman shall be retrenched until the conditions in question has been satisfied. It is difficult to accede to the argument that when the section imposes in mandatory terms a condition prece dent, non-compliance with the said condition would not render the impugned retrenchment invalid. " 9. That the conditions in Section 25-F are conditions precedent are beyond dispute. But still then the question remains whether an offer for payment of wages and compensation is equivalent to payment itself and whether by offering such payment, in the letter of retrenchment, the condi tions precedent should be deemed to have been complied with. Section 25-E no doubt says that no workman shall be retrenchment "until" he has been given either one months notice or has been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice and that such workman has been paid com pensation calculated under Section 25-F (b ). But it may be difficult to make a workman accept payment if he will not himself do that. Therefore, an unconditional offer for payment, preceding retrenchment may be equi valent payment. 10. But it may be difficult to make a workman accept payment if he will not himself do that. Therefore, an unconditional offer for payment, preceding retrenchment may be equi valent payment. 10. In the instant case, however, the notice called upon the retrenched workman to receive payment following their retrenchment. The notice of re trenchment was posted on 1 September 1960, the very day when the retrench ment was to take effect, and the workmen were asked to call at the office for receiving payment either on the same or on any subsequent date. There was little chance for the workmen to receive the letter on 1 September, I960 and call for payment. The notice really amounted to a call to receive payment subsequent to retrenchment. That makes the offer bad and conse quently the retrenchment order becomes incompent. 11. The law laid down in this case was affirmed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 1206 , in which Honble M. Hidayatullah, V. Bhargava and G. K. Miyter, JJ. JJ. have observed as follows :- "under that section, a workman employed in any industry should not be retrenchment until he had been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice had expired, or the workman had been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. The notice in this case bears the date November 15, 1958. It is to the effect that the addressees services were terminated with effect from the 17th November, and that he would get one months wages, in lieu of notice of termination of his service. The workman was further asked to collect his dues from the cash office on November 20, 1958 or thereafter during the working hours. Manifestly, Section 25-F, had not been complied with under which it was incumbent on the employer to pay the workman, the wages for the period of the notice in lieu of the notice. That is to say, if he was asked to go forthwith he had to be paid at the time when he was asked to go and could not be asked to collect his dues afterwards. " 12. That is to say, if he was asked to go forthwith he had to be paid at the time when he was asked to go and could not be asked to collect his dues afterwards. " 12. In the above context the provisions of Section 6-N (b) aft very clear which require that the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment. The expression has been paid at the time of retrenchment make it absolutely clear that the payment should be made before the retrenchment given effect to. It may be that the act of payment may be simultaneous to the action of retrenchment but it cannot be after the retrenchment has already taken place. In the present case the notice of retrenchment dated 19-6-1984 fully established that the action of retrenchment would take place with effect from 19-6-1994 and the services stood terminated on that date. It is further clear that the payment of retrenchment compensation and one months salary in lieu of notice was made on 20-6-1984. Thus it is quite clear from the facts that the workman who was retrenched was not paid the retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment within the meaning of Section 6-N (b) of the Act. There is no material on record to establish that the payment was offered on 19-6-1984. la fact the case of the petitioners itself as stated in the petition is that the notice of retrench ment and retrenchment compensation was served on 20-6 1984; There appears to be no justification why services of the employee stood terminated with effect from 19-6-1984 when the notice itself was served on 20-6-1984 and the retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of notice was offered on 20-6-1984. 13. The Industrial Tribunal, in the above circumstances was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 6-N (b) of the Act were not complied and as such the retrenchment notice was bad in law. The work man is thus entitled to back wages from 20-6-1984 to the date of reinstate ment. 14. The petition is dismissed, accordingly. Petition dismissed. .