Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the workman of the petitioner department. He served the department from 1.6.1995 to 3.1.997 as a daily wage employee. His termination form the service w.e.f. 3.1.1997 gave rise to an industrial dispute. Respondent No. 1 alleged that his services were wrongly termination in blatant violation of he provisions of Section 25-F & 25-N of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947 (for short the Act). On the other hand, the plea of the petitioner-department was that the workman was employed for a specific work. His services were dispensed with as per the directions of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Div. No. 1 Kaithal. In order to comply with the provisions of the Act, the workman was given retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 1073/- vide bank draft dated 20.1.1997. The dispute was adjudicated upon by the Labour Court held that the services of workman were terminated in gross violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It accordingly ordered the re-instatement of workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages form the date of demand notice till re-instatement. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-department has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned award dated 3.4.2003. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the paper book. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent- workman had completed 240 days, since he joined on 1.6.1995 and his services were terminated on 3.1.1997. The termination of service was, therefore, retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Act and it could only be done in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. A bare perusal of the award shows that plea raised by the petitioner- department was that requisite compensation in the shape of a draft of Rs. 1073/- was sent to the respondent- workman but he refused to accept it. This argument did not find favour of the Labour Court as no evidence had been led to substantiate the said plea. 5. Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act expressly provides for payment of retrenchment compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. This argument did not find favour of the Labour Court as no evidence had been led to substantiate the said plea. 5. Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act expressly provides for payment of retrenchment compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. In other words a tender of compensation under Section 25-F of the Act, in order to be valid, should be of precise amount and should be made simultaneously with termination of the service. This is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment. However, in the instant case, the services of workman were terminated on 3.1.1997. A perusal of award shows that bank draft was of dated 20.1.1997. Obviously, it was not of the date when the services of the respondent-workman were terminated i.e. 3.1.1997. Payment of tender of compensation after the time when the retrenchment has taken effect would vitiate the retrenchment and Government non- compliance with the mandatory provision which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy behind would result in nullifying the retrenchment. 6. In Sain Steel Products v. Naipal Singh and others, AIR 2001 SC 2401 [2002(2) SLR 254 (SC)], the services of the workman were terminated on 8.5.1975 and the workman vide letter of even date was asked to collect whatever is the due to him, but did not spell out whether it included the amount as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act or not? In those circumstances, it was held that they cannot take this sentence to be making an offer in terms of Section 25-F of the Act to comply with the terms thereof and upheld the view taken by the Labour Court and by the High Court. 7. In The Shahabad Farmers Coop. Marketing-cum-Professing Society Ltd. v. Atam, Parkash and another, 2000 (4) RSJ 590 : [2001(2) SLR 209 (Pb. 8c Hry.)], retrenchment notice was issued on 15.7.1992, however, cheque for compensation was of the following date i.e. 16.7.1992. The petition of the management was dismissed upholding the award of the Labour Court setting aside the termination of workman on that score. 8. Besides this, the impugned award is dated 3.4.2003 whereas the present petition has been filed by the workman after about three years that too without any cogent and convincing explanation. The petition of the management was dismissed upholding the award of the Labour Court setting aside the termination of workman on that score. 8. Besides this, the impugned award is dated 3.4.2003 whereas the present petition has been filed by the workman after about three years that too without any cogent and convincing explanation. Thus, the claim of the petitioners suffers from delay and lathes in this Court as well. No other point has been argued before us. In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed in limine accordingly.