TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri V. B. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. P. Agrawal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Gajala Bano Kadri, the learned counsel for the respondent workmen. ( 2 ) IT transpires that the petitioner had engaged a large number of workers on muster roll in the Ganga Pollution Scheme. On account of shortage of funds, a decision was taken to retrench the services of muster roll employees in various Divisions of the Nigam, who were engaged on or after August 31, 1989. In this regard, an order dated May 20,1991 was issued directing the concerned officers to retrench the services of the muster roll employees in accordance with law. Based on the said directions, the services, of a large number of muster roll employees were retrenched in June, 1991. The respondent No. 2 was also a workman employed on muster roll and was issued a notice dated June 22, 1991. An offer to pay retrenchment compensation in accordance, with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also made. ( 3 ) IT has come on record that the Union of the workers, namely, Jal Nigam Jal Sansthan mazdoor Union, Mirzapur filed Writ Petition-No. 18124/1991 challenging the retrenchment order, issued by the management to the muster roll employees, and an interim order dated July 8, 1991 was passed staying the retrenchment notice. Based on this interim order, respondent no. 2 continued to work. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on April 13, 1994 on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy of raising an industrial dispute. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the Interim order was vacated, and, accordingly, the workman was disengaged w. e. f. July 1, 1994. The workman raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity and legality of his termination w. e. f. July 1, 1994. The validity and legality of the order of the alleged termination dated July 1, 1994 was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity and legality of his termination w. e. f. July 1, 1994. The validity and legality of the order of the alleged termination dated July 1, 1994 was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court, eventually gave an award dated October 22, 1997 holding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the provisions of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with by the management at the time when the services of the workman was dispensed with on July 1, 1994, and therefore, the dispensation of the services of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court, consequently, directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of his services and with full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court, while directing reinstatement, held that it was immaterial as to whether the retrenchment procedure was followed in the year 1991, inasmuch as the workman continued to work pursuant to the interim order of the High Courts, and therefore, worked for more than 240 days. The Labour court further found that neither the notice of retrenchment nor compensation was received by the workman in June, 1991, and therefore, the Labour Court held that the provision of section 6-N, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and I have perused the record of Writ Petition No. 18124/1991. This court is of the opinion that the Award of the labour Court cannot be sustained. The Labour court was swayed by the fact that the retrenchment notice was not served upon the workman, inasmuch as, there was no signature of the workman showing the receipt of the said notice. In my opinion, this finding is irrelevant, inasmuch as the receipt of the notice is proved by the mere fact that the union of the workers had filed a writ petition challenging the said notice of retrenchment. Consequently, the workman had knowledge of the notice. In my opinion, this finding is irrelevant, inasmuch as the receipt of the notice is proved by the mere fact that the union of the workers had filed a writ petition challenging the said notice of retrenchment. Consequently, the workman had knowledge of the notice. The record also indicates that the employer offered compensation to its workers and that the workman, in fact, has accepted the compensation on July 11, 1994 after he joined the work pursuant to the interim order granted by the High Court on July 8, 1994. ( 6 ) IT is settled law that under the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act which is pari materia to the provisions of section 25-F, a notice is required to be served upon the workman and there must be a positive evidence of offering compensation to the workman. It is irrelevant if the workman accepts or refuses to accept the compensation. This view has been well settled by the Supreme court in Bombay Union of Journalists and others v. State of Bombay and Another AIR 1964 SC 1612 : 1964-I-LLJ-351, National Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and Others v. State of west Bengal and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1206 : 1967-II-LLJ-23, and in the matter of Sain Steel products v. Naipal Singh and Others AIR 2001 sc2401: (2003)4scc628:2001-I-LLJ-345. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the Court finds that from a reading of the evidence and the statements of the parties and from a perusal of the record of Writ Petition No. 18124/1991, that the notice of retrenchment was intimated to the workman, and even though he may not have signed the notice, there is sufficient evidence that he was served because of the writ petition that the workman had filed through his union. The evidence on record indicates that the compensation was also offered and that the workman received the compensation on July 11, 1997. There is no allegation to indicate that less compensation was paid. The record suggests that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. ( 8 ) IN the light of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the provision of Section 6-N of the industrial Disputes Act was fully complied with by the employer and that the retrenchment notice on June 22, 1991 was perfectly valid. The record suggests that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. ( 8 ) IN the light of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the provision of Section 6-N of the industrial Disputes Act was fully complied with by the employer and that the retrenchment notice on June 22, 1991 was perfectly valid. ( 9 ) THE workmans services had not been terminated on July 1, 1994. His services had already come to an end pursuant to the retrenchment notice dated June 22, 1991. But the workman, on account of an interim order of the High Court dated July 8,1991, continued to work. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the retrenchment notice revived automatically, on account of which, the services of the workman came to an end automatically. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, there was no termination of the services of the workman on july 1, 1994. The retrenchment had already been effected earlier, but was kept in abeyance on account of an interim order. Consequently, the Court finds that the reference with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination dated July 1, 1994 was patently erroneous since there was no termination on that date. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned award cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. .