Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.- Petitioner has challenged the award dated 14.06.1991 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, by which while holding termination of services of Respondents No. 3 and 4, the concerned workmen, as illegal and unjustified for want of compliance of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, the concerned workmen have been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including the backwages. 2.There is no dispute that the concerned workmen Niranjan Kumar and Babulal were employed on daily wages basis on 010.1980 and 08.09.1980 respectively. On completion of work, a notice for retrenchment was issued to both the concerned workmen on 07.07.1983. In the notice itself , compensation had been offered to the concerned workmen which was to be paid before completion of the notice period. However, before expiry of period of notice, both the concerned workmen had approached the civil Court and a temporary injunction had been granted by the civil Court on retrenchment of both the concerned workmen. The temporary injunction application finally came to be dismissed by the trial Court only on 111.1983. The Tribunal treating the above date i.e., 111.1983, as the date of retrenchment, has held that there has been violation of Section 25(F) inasmuch as the notice pay and compensation had not been paid to both the concerned workmen on the above date. There is also evidence on record that both the concerned workmen had been offered retrenchment compensation, however, they refused to accept the same as per remarks made on the hand sheet and subsequently, the amount has also been sent to both the concerned workmen by Money Order. It may also be mentioned here that in the statement of claim filed before the Tribunal, the concerned workmen had not mentioned the fact of remedy already availed before the civil Court at all and treated their date of retrenchment as 111.1983 3.Be that as it may, the findings as given by the Tribunal, are wholly perverse and not tenable. An employer is not expected to anticipate the date of rejection of the temporary injunction application or any order to be passed by the civil Courts vacating the interim order passed in favour of the concerned workman. One months notice had already been issued way back on 07.07.1983. There has been sufficient attempt on behalf of the petitioner to make compliance of Section 25(F) under the circumstances. One months notice had already been issued way back on 07.07.1983. There has been sufficient attempt on behalf of the petitioner to make compliance of Section 25(F) under the circumstances. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, as has been submitted by the Counsel for the parties, the concerned workmen Niranjan Kumar had already been paid about Rs. 45,000/-and Babulal has been paid about Rs. 63,000/-as per directions issued by this Court under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. Looking to the nature of employment, it will not be justified for directing the concerned workmen to refund the above amount or even to give liberty to the petitioner to recover the same. 4.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Though the impugned award dated 14.06.1991 is set aside, however, the petitioner may not recover the amount already paid to the concerned workmen as per directions issued by this Court under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947.