JUDGMENT Petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rewa, is assailing an award Annexure 4 dated 18.5.1999 passed by Labour Court, Rewa, in Case No. 7/ID Act/95 (Reference). Matter of workman Mr. Jaiprakash was referred for adjudication of the Labour Court on failure of conciliation by the appropriate Government. Case set up by the workman was that he was initially appointed on 22.9.1990 on daily wage basis. On 3.11.1991, separate order was issued; he worked till 8.7.1994 as Nakedar; case of petitioner was referred for regularization to the Commissioner of Mandi, Bhopal; proposal was accepted; salary of the month of October, 1992 and July, 1993 to 9.11.1994 was not paid. Petitioner's services were terminated as per oral order, no prior notice was given, retrenchment compensation was also not paid. Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days, as such, termination is illegal and void. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in reply to the statement of claim admitted that workman was employed on 22.9.1990 and served till December, 1991, thereafter failed to report on duty, had not served with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti after December, 1991. Workman examined himself in support of the case. Labour Court has passed an award (Annexure4) dated 18.5.1999. The Labour Court has found that workman has rendered the services admittedly from September, 1990 till November, 1991, thus, he has rendered the services for more than 240 days, in the said period he has served for 15 months, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, notice of retrenchment was not issued, hence, termination has been held to be illegal and void, same is in violation of provision of section 25F of ID Act, reinstatement has been ordered without backwages on the ground that workman has obtained employment as Panchayat Karmi, the award passed by learned Labour Court has been assailed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that respondent has been reinstated pursuant to award (Annexure 4) passed by Labour Court. Shri J.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has submitted that burden of proof was wrongly shifted upon Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti-petitioner, as such, the award passed by Labour Court is bad in law; petitioner was not in employment after December, 1991, as such the award is bad in law, same deserves to be quashed. Shri J.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has submitted that burden of proof was wrongly shifted upon Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti-petitioner, as such, the award passed by Labour Court is bad in law; petitioner was not in employment after December, 1991, as such the award is bad in law, same deserves to be quashed. Shri M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that it is a case where no interference is called for as admittedly the petitioner has rendered the services for at least 15 months continuously which fact has not been denied in the written statement. Petitioner was not paid retrenchment compensation. Notice of retrenchment was also not issued, as such, retrenchment has been rightly held to be illegal and void. In my opinion, it is clear from reading of written statement (P-2) filed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that workman has rendered the services from September, 1990 till December 1991. This fact has not been disputed, rather asserted by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, there is no plea taken that there was any interruption in the services in the above period for 15 months, thus petitioner has rendered the services at least for 15 months even as per the case set up by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, thus, Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that termination is illegal and void for want of compliance of section 25F of ID Act. Section 25F of the ID Act was considered by the apex Court in M/s National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others v. The State of West Bengal and another [ AIR 1967 SC 1206 ] and it was held by the apex Court that if workman is retrenched without giving one month's notice, his wages for period of notice must be paid before he is asked to go. The apex Court has emphasized on the payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment. The apex Court in Workmen of Subong Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union v. Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and another [ AIR 1967 SC 420 ], has laid down that non-compliance of section 25 or section 230 renderes the retrenchment invalid. The apex Court in Workmen of Subong Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union v. Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and another [ AIR 1967 SC 420 ], has laid down that non-compliance of section 25 or section 230 renderes the retrenchment invalid. The apex Court in Mohan Lal v. The Management of Mis Bharat Electronics Ltd. [ AIR 1981 SC 1253 ] has followed its earlier decision in State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [ AIR 1960 SC 610 ] and has held in para 9 thus: "9. Reverting to the facts of this case, termination of service of the appellant does not fall within any of the excepted, or to be precise, excluded categories. Undoubtedly, therefore, the termination would constitute retrenchment and by a catena of decisions it is well settled that where prerequisite for valid retrenchment as laid down in section 25F has not been complied with, retrenchment bringing about termination of service is ab initio void. In The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, [(1960) 2 SCR 866 at p. 872 = AIR 1966 SC 610 at p. 613], this Court held that failure to comply with the requirement of section 25F which prescribes a condition precedent for a valid retrenchment renders the order of retrenchment invalid and inoperative. In other words, it does not bring about a cessation of service of the workman and the workman continues to be in service. This was not even seriously controverted before us." In Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass [ AIR 1984 SC 500 ], it has been emphasized by the apex Court that when the prerequisite for a valid retrenchment as laid down in section 25F was not complied with, the retrenchment bringing about termination of service of employee would be ab initio void. In H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and others [ AIR 1986 SC 132 ], law to the same effect has been laid down in Ratan Singh v. Union of India and another [ (1997) 11 SCC 396 ], it has been laid down by the apex Court that section 25F is applicable to termination of even a daily-rated workman who had continuously served for the requisite statutory minimum period in a year, and termination of service of such a workman without compliance of section 25-F was held to be illegal. In Management of MCD v. Premchand Gupta and another [ AIR 2000 SC 454 ], it has been held by the apex Court that if retrenchment compensation has not been paid, termination is null and void. In Rajkumar v. Union of India and others [ (1975) 3 SCC 458 ] considering the similar provision, the apex Court has held that pay and allowances should be paid on the day the order of termination is served. Delay in payment of same was held to be fatal. In Smt. Kusum Gupta @ Kusum Bansal v. Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh [ (1986) 3 SCC 506 ], the apex Court has laid down considering the similar provision that payment of salary in lieu of notice is mandatory. Employer is not entitled to withhold the payment on the ground of non-production of "no dues certificate" by the employee. Termination without such payment was held to be invalid. In view of above discussion, I find no infirmity in the award passed by learned Labour Court. Petitioner has been denied back wages on the ground that he was gainfully employed as Panchayat Karmi, award passed is just and proper, no interference is called for in this petition. Writ petition is devoid of merit, same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.