JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was filed in 1996 against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the award dated 12.1.1991 made by the Labour Court. Since publication of notice for preparation of paper book on 29.4.1998, after seeking a number of adjournments neither list of documents have been filed by the appellant nor initial charges for the paper book have been deposited. Having seen the record of the case and the issue involved, we deem it proper to dispense with the preparation of the paper book and to decide the appeal itself after hearing the parties. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent who was an employee with the Assistant Engineer, Rojari sub-division (8) Indira Ghandi Canal project, Chattargarh, Distt. Bikaner for almost a period of 2 years. It was pointed out that the workman was employed on. 10.1985 and in the, first instance his services were terminated on 17.1.1987 without : giving any notice or compensation though he was in continuous employment for a period of more than one year and had also worked for more than 240 days, during the 12 calendar months immediately proceeding the date of termination. Thereafter he was again employed on 1.10.1987 and then again his services were terminated on 24.12.1988 after completion of one year continuous service and of the second termination also, he was not given the benefit provided under the provision of Section 25(f)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter on raising the industrial dispute in this regard, the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Bikaner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. About these two facts namely the first appointment and the two terminations, there is no dispute. It is stated by the appellant-petitioner the employer, that first appointment was made on 1.5.1985 and not on 1.10.1985. The workman in his claim has specifically averred that he was not paid any compensation for retrenchment and then even the salary for last month of service which stood terminated on 24.12.1988, was not paid before termination became effective but was paid only on 29.12.1998. In reply to claim petition these facts were not denied. However, it was only in the statement before the Tribunal on behalf of the employer it was stated that र 262.50 were offered as compensation. In reply to claim petition these facts were not denied. However, it was only in the statement before the Tribunal on behalf of the employer it was stated that र 262.50 were offered as compensation. However in the absence of any other material supporting this the statement was not found credible. On these basis the learned Judge, Labour Court found that on both occasions, termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination was void ab-initio. On this conclusion the workman was reinstated with full back wages. 4. Thereafter appellant challenged the aforesaid award by way of Writ Petition No. 574/1995. 5. The only ground, raised in the petition challenging the findings of the learned Judge, Labour Court is that infact one month's notice before retrenchment was given to non-petitioner No. 1 on 24.11.1988, in support of which the copy of the notice as Annex. 1 was filed and also he photostat copy was furnished by the respondent workman. The learned Judge affirmed the award made by the Labour Court and has dismissed the petition on 5.10.1995. In this appeal the same contention has been raised before us that the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record that notice before retrenchment for a period of one month was given and therefore, no invalidity was attached to the termination for want of notice under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further urged that the same mistake has been committed by the learned Single Judge in affirming the finding that before retrenchment one month's notice was not served. 6. Having perused the record that is before us, we are of the opinion that the appellants are correct in their submission that so far as service of notice prior to retrenchment which was effective from 24.12.1988 was served on workman is well established. Alongwith writ petition, the copy of noticed dated 24.11.1988 and affidavit of workman Prem Singh has been filed in which a service of notice dated 24.11.1988 terminating the service w.e.f. 24.12.1988 has been admitted. This affidavit had not been controverted by filing any reply in the writ petition. Alongwith writ petition, the copy of noticed dated 24.11.1988 and affidavit of workman Prem Singh has been filed in which a service of notice dated 24.11.1988 terminating the service w.e.f. 24.12.1988 has been admitted. This affidavit had not been controverted by filing any reply in the writ petition. However, in our opinion this mistake would not alter the and result of the award in as much as the award is not merely founded for non-service of notice dated 24.11.1988 but is also found on the ground that no compensation was tendered before effecting the termination of service. In this connection while considering the evidence and objection raised in this regard the learned Judge Labour Court has found on the basis of material before it that this part of the contention of the employer that before termination of service र 262.50 paisa were tendered to the workman as compensation has not been found to be credible. This being the finding of fact and based on appropriate appreciation of evidence on record is not liable to be disturbed in these proceedings. It needs hardly to be stated that the two conditions precedent for effecting any valid retrenchment are firstly the employer must give a notice of one month before intended date of termination or in lieu of such notice one month's wages be paid to the workman and the second condition which is equally mandatory is that before effecting termination of service, the workman must be paid compensation as envisaged under Section 25F(b). If either of the condition is not fulfilled, the termination is invalid. 7. In these facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Special appeal dismissed. *******