JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner - workman against the Labour Court Award dated 11.5.93, contained in Annexure - 10 to the petition, by which the claim of petitioner - workman, that his services had been terminated wrongly vide order dated 16.8.89, has been rejected. 2. Petitioner has urged that he started working with the respondents as a Beldar with effect from 1.1.80. He was working continuously and his services have been terminated vide order dated 6.8.89 and while terminating his service, he has been treated to be in continuous service from December, 1984 and the retrenchment compensation has been awarded only from the said date. He claims that he be treated to be in service with effect from January, 1980 and in consequence, the retrenchment order be declared to be bad. As the Labour Court did not accept this claim hence this petition. 3. Heard Mr. P.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Basti Chand Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Mehta that petitioner had worked in various Divisions of the same department and, thus, the Labour Court failed to appreciate the data/information given by the petitioner and wrongly made the award treating him to be in continuous service from December, 1984. In support of his case he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 25/1991 decided on 1.10.91 , and the Special Leave Petition No. 5956/1992, State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Kumar Sharma , filed by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been dismissed vide order dated 20.4.92. The same judgment has also been followed in Virendra Kumar v. State, 1996 WLR 818 . It has been held herein that if a workman had worked in different units of the same establishment, the period of service rendered in all units be taken into account while computing the period of 240 days for purpose of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. There is no substance in this submission as the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court made it clear that he had been transferred from one unit to another after 1984. 5. There is no substance in this submission as the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court made it clear that he had been transferred from one unit to another after 1984. As the petitioner had been treated to be in service since December, 1984, the submissions made by Mr. Mehta are of no substance and would not improve the case of the petitioner. 6. It has further been submitted by Mr. Mehta that while passing retrenchment order in 1989, petitioner had not been given the retrenchment compensation along with the order and, therefore the retrenchment order dated 16.8.1989 is invalid in law. No doubt, in Gamon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Das, 1984 (1) SCC 509 , and in Narottam Chopra v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and others, 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 97 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amount of retrenchment compensation must be paid along with the order of retrenchment and this is mandatory requirement. In State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610 it has been observed as under:- "The section provides that no workman shall be retrenched until the condition in question has been satisfied. It is difficult to accede to the workman that when the section imposes, in mandatory terms, a condition precedent, non - compliance with said condition would not render the impugned retrenchment invalid Failure to comply with the said provision renders the impugned order invalid and inoperative." 7. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. N. Sundra Money, 1976 (32) FLR 197 (SC) . 8. I have gone through the entire record, particularly the material which formed part of the record before the Labour Court. No such plea had ever been raised and whether the amount was paid or not along with the retrenchment order, is question of fact which cannot be permitted to be raised first time before this Court. Petitioner was supposed to plead and prove the said fact before the Labour Court, (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1976 (32) FLR 197 (SC) ). Petitioner has chosen not to agitate this issue before the Labour Court, he cannot be permitted to raise it here first time in writ jurisdiction. 9. Petitioner was supposed to plead and prove the said fact before the Labour Court, (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1976 (32) FLR 197 (SC) ). Petitioner has chosen not to agitate this issue before the Labour Court, he cannot be permitted to raise it here first time in writ jurisdiction. 9. The Labour Court, after examining the entire record, has recorded the finding of fact that petitioner had worked for 120 days in 1982 ; 216 days in 1983 and only for five days in 1984. However, he worked continuously, since December, 1984. In view of the fact that petitioner worked only for five days from January 1984 to November 1984, he cannot be said to be in continuous service since 1980 and no fault can be found with the Labour Court's Award. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Dismissed. *******