Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By instant writ petition, petitioner workman has challenged award dated 16.04.1992 (Annexure-2) passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur, whereby the retrenchment has been held to be valid and in compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner workman joined as Beldar on daily wages basis @ Rs.9/-with effect from 01.03.1983. As a result of notice (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No. 2 (Employer) on 29.04.1984, his services stood terminated with effect from 01.06.1984, against which he filed an application before Conciliation Officer, who sent his failure report, and the appropriate Government made Reference to the Labour Court vide Notification dated 21.02.1985. Petitioner workman filed statement of claim and submitted that he was engaged as Beldar on daily wage of Rs. 9/-and his services were ordered to be terminated by respondent employer w.e.f. 01.06.1984 and he completed more than 240 days of services in the course of his working with employer. It was also averred in statement of claim that notice dated 29.04.1984 was served upon him on 15.05.1984, as such he was neither served with one months notice nor adequate compensation has been paid as required under Section 25-F(b) of the Act and in view of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act, he be reinstated in service with full back wages. 3. Respondent employer filed written statement inter-alia submitting that notice dated 29.04.1984 was duly pasted on General Notice Board - a copy whereof was also sent to the Union as well as individual workman concerned including present petitioner, but petitioner refused to accept the notice dated 29.04.1984 (Annexure-1) and accordingly one months notice was issued to him as required under Section 25-F(a) of the Act and so far as payment towards compensation is concerned, he was entitled for 15 dyas average pay of daily wage payable to him for one month which comes to Rs. 234/ -per month and accordingly its 15 days wages come to Rs. 117/-which was tendered to him on 30.05.1984 since he refused to accept it, the same was sent to him by postal money order on 01.06.1984 after adjusting postal charges of money order amount and thus Rs. 234/ -per month and accordingly its 15 days wages come to Rs. 117/-which was tendered to him on 30.05.1984 since he refused to accept it, the same was sent to him by postal money order on 01.06.1984 after adjusting postal charges of money order amount and thus Rs. 113.40 was sent by postal money order and, therefore, full compliance in terms of Section 25-F of the Act was made by employer and the decision was taken for termination as the project work at which he was engaged on daily wages basis, was over and there was no such requirement at the project site where he was engaged as Beldar. 4. The Labour Court after taking note of material on record including affidavits filed by petitioner workman so also by Mahesh Maheshwari, Hukamchand, Ramsahai Sharma on behalf of respondents, arrived at conclusion that one months notice so also compensation was duly tendered to petitioner but he refused to accept the same, and it was thereafter tendered to the workman on 01.06.1984 by way of postal money order. The Labour Court concluded that full compliance was made of Section 25-F of the Act and accordingly declined to accept the claim of workman vide award dated 16.04.1992. Hence, this petition. 5. Shri D.C. Tiwari, Counsel for petitioner has urged that notice was served upon petitioner on 15.05.1984 and his services were sought to be terminated w.e.f. 01.06.1984 as such one months clear notice as provided under Section 25-F(a) of the Act was not properly sent and served. So far as compensation part is concerned, Counsel urged that petitioner was entitled to 15 days wages under Section 25-F(b) of the Act and undisputably, he was paid wages of 13 days which comes to Rs. 117/-@ Rs. 9/-per day, and, therefore, short payment towards compensation as provided under Section 25-F(b) of the Act was paid. That apart, only Rs. 113.40 as compensation was tendered after adjusting postal charges of Rs. 3.60 towards money order, which cannot be said to be in compliance of Section 25-F(b) of the Act. 6. 117/-@ Rs. 9/-per day, and, therefore, short payment towards compensation as provided under Section 25-F(b) of the Act was paid. That apart, only Rs. 113.40 as compensation was tendered after adjusting postal charges of Rs. 3.60 towards money order, which cannot be said to be in compliance of Section 25-F(b) of the Act. 6. Shri Tiwari has further urged that Labour Court has committed serious error in not taking note of statements recorded in course of proceedings, besides other material on record, including statement of Mahesh Maheshwari, Assistant Engineer PWD, wherein he stated at the stage of cross-examination that 13 days wages were paid to the workman and apart from it, notice was served upon him on 15.05.1984, as such, undisputably, there was short of notice period as provided under Section 25-F of the Act and since respondents failed to comply with the pre-requisite condition required under Section 25-F of the Act, very finding recorded by Labour Court in upholding respondents action is perverse and contrary to material on record, which is required to be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, Counsel relied upon decisions of this Court in Devendra Salolia vs. State 1990 (1) RLR 734 and Smt. Ramjanki Bai vs. State, 1992 (1) RLR 416. 7. Respondent employer has filed reply to writ petition; and apart from what has been averred in written statement and considered by Labour Court, it has been stated in Para 4 of reply that monthly wages excluding Sundays comes to Rs. 234/-of 26 days @ Rs. 9/-per day; and so far as payment towards compensation is concerned, it has been averred that petitioner was entitled for wages for notice period for half a month i.e., 13 days only which comes to Rs. 117/-for 13 days against monthly wages of Rs. 234/- for 26 days, and accordingly, compliance of Section 25-F of the Act has been made while dispensing with his services. 8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused martial on record. 117/-for 13 days against monthly wages of Rs. 234/- for 26 days, and accordingly, compliance of Section 25-F of the Act has been made while dispensing with his services. 8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused martial on record. According to Scheme of the Act, so far as it relates to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Act, no distinction has been made, whether workman has been engaged either on daily wages or regular basis, and on account of nature of employment, no discrimination can be made since it is a harmonious and benevolent construction of legislation, otherwise it may result in a hyper-technical approach to legislative intent. 9. Similarly, as regards payment towards retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act, two divergent standards cannot be made merely because one is daily wager or the other is in regular pay scale or on consolidated monthly wages and, therfore, minimum requirement of Section 25-F of the Act has to be complied with in all contingencies without taking resort to nature of employment of workman offered. Be that as it may, workman, who remained in employment in continuous service for not less than one year, if retrenched, the employer is under obligation to first comply with two preconditions, which are of mandatory in nature as provided in Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act before the retrenchment is given effect to. 10. As regards contention raised by Counsel for petitioner that requirement of giving one months clear notice in lieu of salary as provided under Section 25-F(a) of the Act was not complied with, from a perusal of record, it is clear that one months notice was issued and sent to petitioner on 28.04.1984 and was simultaneously pasted on General Notice Board on 29.04.1984 and also sent to concerned Workmens Union and was also sent for personal service upon him through Hukam Chand Class IV employer and according to his statement, petitioner workman upon going through notice, refused to accept it and finally it was served upon him on 15.05.1984. Sufficient material has come on record to show that since retrenchment was to be given effect to from 01.06.1984, one months prior notice, which is pre-requisite condition as provided under Section 25-F(a) of the Act, has been duly complied with, and in my opinion, no error has been committed by Labour Court while recording finding with regard to due compliance of one months prior notice as provided under Section 25-F(a) of the Act. 11. 11. Second contention raised by Shri Tiwari, was that compensation which was required to be paid to petitioner should be of 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or 1984 vkj ,y vkj is t 981] easbl iz ~ SA /kkjk 25&,Q fd NaVuh fd;s tkus ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk fyf[kr uksfVl dkexkj dks fn;k tkos ;k ml uksfVl ds ,ot esa mldks osru fn;k tkosA ,d ekg ds uksfVl dk Li"V vFkZ rhl fnu dh le;kof/k dk uksfVl gS vkSj ;fn bl uksfVl ds cnys osru fn;k tkrk gS rks og Hkh Li"V :i ls rhl fnu sa 696 :i;s dk osru gksuk pkfgA izkFkhZ dk osru pwafd] 2]320 #i;s Fkk vr% mls rhl fnu ds osru ds :i es dh Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk pkfg;s FkkA i=koyh ij miyC/k rF;kas ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks dsoy 603 #i;s dk sHkqxrku uksfVl ds ,ot esa osru ds :i esa fd;k x;k A mlh izdkj /kkjk 25&,Q ch esa ;g Li"V vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd dkedkt dks NaVuh ds le; 15 fnu ds vkSlr osru ds cjkcj eqvkotk izsok ds Rd ,d o"kZ dh lssok iwjh dj yh rks mls dqy 30 fnu ds vkS,ot esa fn;k tkuk pkfgA tc izkFkhZ us nks o"kZ dh lslr osru ds cjkcj eqvkotk fn;k tkuk vko;d FkkA Lohdk;Z :i ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 us 30 fnu dk eqvkotk ugha nsdj izkFkhZ dks 603 #i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tks 26 fnu dh vkSlr osru ds cjkcj vkrk gS bl izdj.k ds rF;kas dks nsfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds iz[kus ls ;g Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 us vkS|ksko/kkuksa dks iwjh rjg ls le>s fcuk dk;Zokgh dh gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 us ,d ekg dk vFkZ ml le; ds vuq:i yxk;k gS ftl le; ds fy;s izkFkhZ dks izsru fn;k tkrk gSA blh izdkj dqy 30 fnu dh vof/k dsRd ekg dk oseqvkots dk vFkZ Hkh mUgksaus 26 fnu ds osru fn;s tkus ds cjkcj eku Hkqxrku fd;k gSA /kkjk 25&, easiz; DrrqifjHkk"kk dks i<us ek= ls ;g Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 }kjk tks foys"k.k bl vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA og drbZ xyr gS vkSj vekU; gSA vr% i{kdkjksa ds e/; Lohdk;Z rF;kas ls ;g Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZx.k izkFkhZ dh lsfr d`okfuook ls gVkus dk vknsk izHkkokwf"krh tks dk; Zokgh dh xbZgS og voS/kkfud gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsU; ?sfd; s tkus;ksX; gSAß 14. This Court in Smt. Ramjankibai vs. State (Supra), examined similar controversy as to what will be the effect of compensation of 15 days wages, to which workman is entitled for, in following manner:- “Similarly when Section 25-F(b) speaks that the conpensation be equivalent to 15 days, it cannot be less than what has been prescribed under Section 25-F(b) and once a person is found to be entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F(b), he has to be paid compesnation under Section 25-F(b), the amount equivalent to 15 days pay and it cannto be made to be for a period of less than 15 days as has been done in instant case. The question of strict compliance of such provisions, of course with reference to the notice period was considered by Justice P.N. Singhal in a Judgment in Poonam Chand Joshi vs. Union of India, 1970 RLW 487 and while quoting following from Para 166 of Halsburys Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. 37):- “When a period is fixed before the expiration of which as act may be done, the person for whose benefit the delay is prescribed has the benefit of the entire period, and accordingly in computing it the day from which it runs as well as the day on which it expires must be excluded and the act cannot be done before midnight of that.” It was held that as the notice in that case fell short of minimum period of three months, petitioner was entitled to ignore it as in invalid notice in view of the clear requirement of the rule that the notice shall be of not less than three months.” 15. In view of legal proposition (Supra), in my opinion, compensation which was allegadly paid to petitioner is less than what has been provided in Section 25-F(b) of the Act, because payment has been made of 13 days, which cannot be said to be a compliance of Section 25-F(b) of the Act. Labour Court has failed to take note of the dispute as to whether compensation paid was at all in complance of the Act or not. Once this fact remained undisputed that petitioner has been paid towards retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs. 113.40, after adjusting charges of postal money order, which too is of 13 days wages of Rs. 117/-@ Rs. Once this fact remained undisputed that petitioner has been paid towards retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs. 113.40, after adjusting charges of postal money order, which too is of 13 days wages of Rs. 117/-@ Rs. 9/- per day, which is not actual wages for 15 days as required to be tendered and paid under Section 25-F(b) of the Act. In this view of matter, in my opinion, Labour Court has committed error of law in upholding action of respondent employer in respect of making compliance of Section 25-F(b) of the Act and, therefore, conclusion arrived at by Labour Court being perverse to material on record and contrary to law, is not legally sustainable. 16. It is not always mandatory for the Courts to order reinstatement in cases where there has been violation of Section 25-F(b) of the Act which can be substituted for good reason by awarding compensation in lieu thereof . The services of petitioner workman were terminated in June, 1984 and employment was only for a particular project work which too came to an end long back in the year 1984 resulting in retrenchment of the workmen; he worked in the department for almost 14 months and after his termination by now 22 years have elapsed, if he is to be reinstated, he could only be on daily wages basis on the minimum of wages last paid, and the possibility of he being employed else where by now cannot be ruled out. Hence, in peculiar facts and circumstnaces of the case, I do not consider it proper to reinstate him in service. However, in view of non-compliance of Section 25-F(b) of the Act I consider it proper in lieu of the order of reinstatement and back wages, to award Rs. 30,000/-to petitioner workman as compensation. 17. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed. The award dated 16.04.1992 (Annexure-2) passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur, is hereby quashed and set-aside. However, I am not inclined to direct reinstatement of petitioner, but having regard to the facts of case, I direct that a compensation of a sum of Rs. 30,000/-be paid to petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. This amount is being paid in full and final settlement of all the claims of petitioner. The said amount shall be paid within two months. No order as to costs.