JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition by a person who has been denied fruits of successful litigation fought for illegal retrenchment and perhaps is made to pay the penalty for agreeing to forgo the backwages and demanding current wages to secure his bread. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Nakedar by the respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur on 6.8.85 and his services were terminated on 16.5.86. An industrial dispute raised against the termination was referred to labour Court, Jodhpur in 1991. The labour Court gave its award on 24th Sept., 1994 finding the termination of the petitioner to be invalid. It ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and also awarded backwages w.e.f. 11th Dec., 1991, the date on which reference was made, but denied backwages prior to that date. In pursuance of that award, the petitioner presented himself for being taken on duty before the Administrator. Municipal Board, Jodhpur on 30th Sept., 1994 but reinstatement was avoided on some ground or other. He again made representation. Ultimately, by his application dated 28.12.94 he agreed for forgoing the backwages for securing immediate reinstatement, the course as had been adopted by the Municipal Board in respect of other workers whose termination of service have been found to be invalid in the like manner. On furnishing the undertaking for forgoing the backwages, he was offered appointment vide order dated 13th Jan. 1995 (Annex. 5). Notwithstanding this appointment dated 13th Jan., 1995, no payment of wages was made to the petitioner in pursuance thereof also, which led to filing of writ petition No. 2740/96. No sooner the service of the said writ petition was affected on the respondents calling upon them to show cause, the respondents issued a direction on 29th Nov., 1996 vide Annex. 8 to retrench all the three persons named therein who were earlier found to have been retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order speaks that because of non compliance of Section 25-F, a loss has been caused to the Corporation for which disciplinary proceedings shall be taken against those who had resorted to retrenchment without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is irony of circumstances that, as will be seen presently, this order dated 29.11.96 itself violates not only the directions issued by the Govt. It is irony of circumstances that, as will be seen presently, this order dated 29.11.96 itself violates not only the directions issued by the Govt. but in avoidance of effect of a binding decision of a Court for the implementation of which the obligation under the statute has been placed on the State Govt. It needs no argument that for implementation of an award Sec 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act obligates the appropriate Govt. to take action for such implementation when a complaint is lodged. It is unfortunate that instead of lending any assistance in implementing the award, ignoring the effect of direction, such an order has been issued to deny the legitimate consequence of the award which had been accepted. In fact the order admits that retrenchment that has been made subject matter of industrial dispute was invalid for breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ordinary consequence of which in law is well settled by Apex Court to be reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 3. In pursuance of this direction, the Municipal Corporation in due obedience, issued a notice for terminating service of the petitioner on 19th Dec., 1996 with immediate effect which was termed as a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act in lieu of one months notice which carried with it the wages from 13th Jan., 1995 to 20th Dec., 1996, which had remained unpaid since appointment, one month's salary in lieu of notice under Section 25-F and retrenchment compensation for two years @ 15 days wages for each year of service by considering the period of employment to be only from 13.1.95 to 20.12.96 for each completed year of service since 13.1.95. Another notice was sent on 20th Dec., 96 alleging that the notice dated 19.12.1996 was sought to be served at the residence of the petitioner but as he was not found and the services have been terminated w.e.f. 20th Dec., 1996, the amount payable under Section 25-F is being sent by registered A.D. 4. Apart from other circumstances, which shall be referred to shortly, the retenchment notice is on the face of it invalid and cannot have any legal effect. Apart from other circumstances, which shall be referred to shortly, the retenchment notice is on the face of it invalid and cannot have any legal effect. Firstly, clause (b) of Section 25-F requires that the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months. The impugned notice of termination computes the compensation for retrenchment for the period from 13.1.95 to 20.12.96 only i.e. two years completed continuous service as if the appointment dated 13.1.95 was a fresh appointment and the appointment made on 6.8.85 which has been ordered to be continuous vide award dated 24th Sept., 94 has ceased to exit. It is to be noticed that the petitioner in his undertaking has not waived any of his rights flowing from the award so far as it related to reinstatement and continuity of service following therefrom. Nor the declaration of invalidity of termination for breach of provisions of so Industrial Disputes Act was ever disputed. In fact the direction dated 19.11.96 proceeds on premise, the services of the petitioner were terminated in breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by not following the provisions and solicits information about those responsible for not following provisions of law so that they can be proceeded against. Petitioner has only undertaken not to claim the backwages awarded under the said award. If the respondents have acted on that basis then so far as the reinstatement with continuity of service is concerned, becomes operative on the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award and it becomes an obligation of the respondent Municipality to reinstate the workman with effect from the date the award became operative and the petitioner became entitled to full wages with effect from that date as may be fixed by considering him in continuous service since his appointment on 6.8.85 not as backwages but as current wages. If that be so, the irresistible conclusion is that as on the date the impugned retrenchment was sought to be effected, petitioner must be deemed to be in continuous service w.e.t. 6.8.85 until 20th Dec. 1996. If that be so, the irresistible conclusion is that as on the date the impugned retrenchment was sought to be effected, petitioner must be deemed to be in continuous service w.e.t. 6.8.85 until 20th Dec. 1996. Further conclusion is not far to reach that the computation if compensation on the basis of period of employment only w.e.t. 13.1.95 is not in accordance with Section 25-F(b) of the Act of 1947. This alone is sufficient to vitiate the retrenchment which is not accompanied with the requisite amount of retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b), 5. Another requirement of Section 25-F is that apart from notice of termination a notice in the prescribed manner is to be served on the appropriate Govt. or such authority as has been prescribed by the State Govt. by notification in the official gazette. It is the requirement of prescribed manner of notice that the employer has to assign reasons for retrenchment which is not by way of punishment/superannuation/ill health. Such reason can only be a mason attached with the employer's requirement to terminate the services. It cannot be a direction from the State Govt. to terminate the services which is envisaged to be a reason within the meaning of such requirement. It may be apposite to notice that the prescribed form of notice to the appropriate Govt. requires reasons for retrenchment to be disclosed therein. If any such direction by the State Govt. whether justified or unjustified can be treated to be disclosure of the reasons for resorting to reinstatement, the direction by the State Govt. does not disclose any reason for retrenchment otherwise than getting over the necessity of making the payment in pursuance of the award of reinstating the workman. It even does no say the services of concerned workman is not required. 6. That apart, if the appointment dated 13.1.95 is to be treated as a fresh appointment and the termination of service dated 19.12.96 is termination of the fresh appointment only then also the award dated 24.9.94, which is unchallenged and operative, remains in force. It even does no say the services of concerned workman is not required. 6. That apart, if the appointment dated 13.1.95 is to be treated as a fresh appointment and the termination of service dated 19.12.96 is termination of the fresh appointment only then also the award dated 24.9.94, which is unchallenged and operative, remains in force. In other words, even if the fresh appointment dated 1.3.95 goes in terms of notice dated 19.12.96, the petitioner's right to continue in service in pursuance of the awarded dated 24.9.94 with the continuity of service w.e.f. 6.8.1985 and its consequences on service ice career remain unaffected and continue to be the rights of the petitioner to be dealt with accordingly. 7. In connection with that, certain uncontroverted facts have to be noticed before proceeding further. 8. The State Govt. vide its direction issued under the Local Self Deptt. on 8.1.89 has accepted as a matter of policy that in terms of policy adopted vide earlier orders dated 5.4.81. 2.5.86 and 18.4.87 those who were in employment on 31.12.86 and continued for a period of 240 days and more, their cases may be considered for regularisation on the basis of eligibility of and suitability against the existing vacant, posts. In pursuance of this by order dated 15.5.89 three persons were regularised of which Gopi Kishan Vyas is said to be appointed later than the petitioner on the post of Sub Nakedar. In other words, if the service of the petitioner is considered continuous w.e.f. 6.8.85, the case of the petitioner for regularisation ought to have been considered prior to said Shri Gopi Kishan Vyas is also apparent from the fact that the retrenchment effected earlier was accepted to he invalid as having been made in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F. The State Govt. in its communication dated 29.11.96 directed the termination of the petitioner's services without considering his case for regularisation in terms of the policy decision of the State Govt. dated 18.1.89 along with similarly situated persons at his legitimate place in the seniority would make out a case for violation of petitioner's fundamental right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Not only this, a document has been placed on record which has not been controverted as Annex. dated 18.1.89 along with similarly situated persons at his legitimate place in the seniority would make out a case for violation of petitioner's fundamental right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Not only this, a document has been placed on record which has not been controverted as Annex. 11 in which a person who was appointed on 9.8.85 as Sub Nakedar and who has not even completed 240 days of continuous service on 31st Dec., 1986 but by deeming that had he been continued on the post of Sub-Nakedar he would have completed continuous service for 240 days on the said date his appointment was regularised by the order of the Govt. dated 1.4.89. There is no discernible reason for not extending the benefit of Circular dated 18.1.89 (Annx. 9) to the case of the petitioner who in terms of the award dated 24.9.94 cannot but be deemed to be in continuous service since 6.8.85 until his services have been terminated again on 20th Dec., 1996, had undoubtedly completed a working of more than 240 days on 31st Dec., 1986. Apparently, the direction issued by the State Govt. on 29.11.96 has been issued in oblivion of all these facts and primarily to inflict punishment on petitioner for having approached Court once again for non-payment of his wages since offering him an appointment vide order dated 13.1.95 after obtaining an undertaking that the petitioner shall not press for backwages, was no act of mercy on the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner has acted to the detriment of his interest in forgoing backwages notwithstanding it was an enforceable claim against the State Govt. in terms of an operative award only to minimise the litigation with the employer with whom he had to work. The only legitimate consequence of such an undertaking in the spirit of give and take ought to have been reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service with no payment of backwages prior to the date of reinstatement under the award dated 24.9.94 and make payment of current wages since the date of award and deal with the petitioner's service matters by treating him to be in continuous service w.e.f. 6.8.85. In not doing so, by ignoring all these facts the least it can be said that after securing undertaking to give an appointment, ostensibly fresh one, with effect from 13.1.95 and not to pay salary even from the date of such reappointment was an act of betrayal and the direction to terminate the services of the petitioner vide communication dated 26.11.96 and consequential termination of his services by treating it to be an employment since 13.1.95 only on his approaching Court for redress suffers from legal malice. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed, the direction of the State Govt., which does not appear to have been issued under any authority except as executive fiat not backed with requisite of duty to act fairly and consequential termination of the service of the petitioner vide notice/order dated 19.12.96 50 and 20.12.96 are quashed. The respondents are further directed to treat the petitioner in continuous service w.e.f. 6.8.85 in terms of the award dated 24.9.94 with all consequential benefits flowing from it. However, keeping in view the undertaking given by the petitioner he be entitled to his emoluments only w.e.f. the expiry of 30 days of the publication of the award when the award became operative and he became entitled to such emoluments and admittedly salary with effect from that date has not been paid to the petitioner since the petitioner was offered certain amounts with impugned notice dated 19.12.96 and 20.12.96, if such amount has been received by the petitioner the same shall be adjusted against total amount. 10. Annex. 3 Copy of application dated 28.12.94 found payable on account of fixation of the petitioner's salary on the basis of his continuous service. Such amount found due to the petitioner shall be paid with interest @12 per cent per annum until the payment is made. The petitioner's case for regularisation in terms of Govt. Circular dated 18.1.89 shall be considered keeping in view the similar treatment meted out to other persons instances of which have been made vide Annex. 10 & 11, and at least with effect from the date person junior to the petitioner has been so considered and regularised. This exercise shall also be carried out within a period of three months from the date of service of the writ or the date when certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. 10 & 11, and at least with effect from the date person junior to the petitioner has been so considered and regularised. This exercise shall also be carried out within a period of three months from the date of service of the writ or the date when certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. Failing which the petitioner shall be absolved from his undertaking and the respondents shall further be liable for entire backwages with interest @ 12% in terms of the award of the labour Court dated 24.9.94. 11. The petitioner shall get costs of this petition from the respondents.Writ Petition allowed with costs. *******