ORDER : M. Venugopal, J. The Petitioner/Management has filed the present Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records of the First Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 and to quash the award passed dated 31.3.2005. 2. The First Respondent/Labour Court, while passing an award in I.D. No. 203 of 2003, dated 31.03.2005, filed by the Second Respondent/Workmen, among other things, observed that the Second Respondent/Claimant/Workman is entitled to claim a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- from the Petitioner/Respondent/Management and directed the Petitioner/Management to pay the same and resultantly, allowed the industrial dispute. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the award, dated 31.3.2005, passed by the Second Respondent/Labour Court, dated 31.03.2005, in I.D. No. 203 of 2003, the Petitioner/Respondent/Management has filed the present Writ Petition, as an aggrieved person. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Management submits that the award passed by the First Respondent/Labour Court, dated 31.3.2005, in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 is opposed to principles of law and that the Second Respondent/Workman has taken up employment with M.W.2 immediately after leaving the service of the Petitioner/Management and at the time when conciliation proceedings have taken place, the Second Respondent/Workman has been in service of witness M.W.2 and even from 1.4.2003 the Second Respondent/Workman has been in service of M.W.2. If really, the Second Respondent/Workman has been terminated from service by the Petitioner/Management on 31.3.2003 will itself show that he has left the service of the Petitioner/Management voluntarily. 5. The case of the Petitioner/Management is that the Second Respondent/Workman upon his failure to report for duty the Petitioner/Management has been forced to reduce the volume of work and this will point out that the Petitioner/Management has not terminated the Second Respondent/Workman from service. 6. Continuing further, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Management that the First Respondent/Labour Court has committed an error in disregarding the evidence of M.W.2 and indeed M.W.2 has categorically stated that the Second Respondent/Workman joined his services immediately on leaving the Petitioner/Management and this will show that his case of termination is not a true one. 7. Expatiating his submission, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Second Respondent/Workman has been gainfully worked on elsewhere on higher wage and that the Petitioner/Management has to close down its business and therefore, the First Respondent/Labour Court ought to have declined any relief to him. 8. 7. Expatiating his submission, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Second Respondent/Workman has been gainfully worked on elsewhere on higher wage and that the Petitioner/Management has to close down its business and therefore, the First Respondent/Labour Court ought to have declined any relief to him. 8. In short, a plea is put forward on the side of the Petitioner/Management that the First Respondent/Labour Court has totally ignored the material evidence on record and has not adverted to the material and factual aspects of the matter in a proper perspective which has resulted in an erroneous award being passed against the Petitioner/Management and as such prays for allowing the Writ Petition to promote substantial cause of Justice. 9. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/Workman that the First Respondent/Labour Court upon an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record has come to a clear conclusion in its award that in view of the strained relationship between the parties, the present dispute in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 has ordered for a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the Second Respondent/Workman, instead of ordering reinstatement, which need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Writ jurisdiction. 10. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/Workman cites a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohammed yaqub and Anr. 2001 1 L.L.J. 7 wherein it is laid down as follows: In dismissing the appeal of company employer, the Supreme Court observed that there could not be any automatic termination of the Respondent-workman on the basis of the company's Standing Order 9.3.12, which provided for striking off the rolls of a workman's name who absented himself for more than 10 days without leave. Principles of natural justice had to be complied with. 11. He also seeks in aid of yet another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Nicks (India), Tools v. Ram Surat and Anr. Principles of natural justice had to be complied with. 11. He also seeks in aid of yet another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Nicks (India), Tools v. Ram Surat and Anr. 2004(4) L.L.N. 720 at page 721, where in it is held as follows: From the overall proceedings before the Labour court, it is noticed that through the management did take the stand that the workman had left the services of the Appellant management voluntarily by receiving his total dues in full and final settlement it did not, at the stage of filing of its written statement, contend that the workman has executed a receipt which is now sought to be produced as Exhibit M/X (M3). This coupled with the fact that the said document was not confronted to the Respondent-workman, is sufficient to hold that this document cannot be relied upon for establishing the fact that the management has proved its case that the workman had voluntarily left his services. The trial Court has further buttressed this finding by noticing the difference in the ink in the receipt as well as the bonus register as also the absence of revenue an inference that the receipt in question may have been signed previously but was filled up subsequently. This findings of the Labour Court has been accepted by the High Court has been accepted by the High Court and this being a finding of fact and which cannot be said to be perverse, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in this appeal. In the instant case, it is noticed that the basic ground on which the Labour Court reduced the back wages based on a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which, as further noticed by the Court was overruled by a subsequent judgment of a Division Bench. Therefore, the very foundation of the conclusion of the Labour Court having been destroyed, the Appellant could not derive any support from the above cited judgments of that Court. Similarly, in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board the Supreme Court only said that it is not an inevitable conclusion that every time a reinstatement is ordered, full back-wages was the only consequence. Similarly, in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board the Supreme Court only said that it is not an inevitable conclusion that every time a reinstatement is ordered, full back-wages was the only consequence. The Supreme Court, did not preclude that even in cases where full back-wages are legally due, the superior Courts are precluded from doing so merely because the Labour Court has on an erroneous ground reduced such back-wages. In the instant case, we have noticed that the trial Court apart from generally observing that in Ludhiana, there must have been job opportunities available, on facts it did not rely upon any particular material to hold either such job was in fact available to the Respondent and he refused to accept the same or he was otherwise gainfully employed during the period he was kept out of work. On the contrary, it is for the first time before the Writ Court the Appellant tried to produce additional evidence which was rightly not considered by High Court because the same was not brought on record in a manner known to law. Be that as it may, in the instance case was the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant is entitled to full back-wages. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also relies on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bank of Baroda and Ghe marbai Harjibhai Rabari reported in 2005(2) L.L.N. 671 at page 672 whereby and where under it is observed thus: In the instant case, the workman has established the fact which, of course, has not been denied by the bank, that he did work as a driver of the car belonging to the bank during the relevant period which come to more than 240 days of work. He has produced 3 vouchers which showed that he had been paid certain sums of money towards his wages and the said amount has been debited to the account of the bank. As against this, no evidence has been adduced by the bank to rebut this piece of evidence produced by the workman. He has produced 3 vouchers which showed that he had been paid certain sums of money towards his wages and the said amount has been debited to the account of the bank. As against this, no evidence has been adduced by the bank to rebut this piece of evidence produced by the workman. It remained contended by filing a written statement wherein it denied the claim of the workman and took up a plea that the employment of such drivers was under a scheme by which they are, in reality, the employee of the executive concerned and not that of the bank and that their employment comes to end with executive's retirement/transfer but none was examined to prove the scheme. No evidence was led to establish that the vouchers produced by the workman were either not genuine or did not pertain to the wages paid to the workman. No explanation by way of evidence was produced to show for what purpose the workman's signatures were taken in the register maintained by the bank. In the said factual background, the question of workman further proving his case does not arise because there was no challenge at all to his evidence by way of rebuttal by the bank. Thus finding of by Tribunal that in spite of the fact that there was not letter of appointment since the factum of the workman having worked between July, 1994 and October 1995, i.e., for period of more than 240 days was established. The termination of the services of the workman was contrary to the provisions of the Act. Workman entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages. 13. This Court has heard the learned Counsels appearing for the 14. The Second Respondent/Workman in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 parties and noticed their submissions. before the First Respondent/Labour Court has averred that he has been an employee under the Petitioner/Respondent/Management as Salesman from 10.7.1972 to 30.3.2003 and his last drawn monthly salary has been Rs. 1,900/-. He has been terminated from service by the Petitioner/Respondent/Management on 31.3.2003 without any reasons. 15. According to the Second Respondent/Workman, termination is an unlawful one and the Petitioner/Respondent/Management has not followed the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, prays for his re-instatement with full back wages and continuity of service together with all attendant benefits. 16. 1,900/-. He has been terminated from service by the Petitioner/Respondent/Management on 31.3.2003 without any reasons. 15. According to the Second Respondent/Workman, termination is an unlawful one and the Petitioner/Respondent/Management has not followed the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, prays for his re-instatement with full back wages and continuity of service together with all attendant benefits. 16. In the counter to I.D. No. 203 of 2003, the Petitioner/Management has stated that the Second Respondent/Workman's appointment is not from 10.7.1970 but it is only from 1.12.1975 and his last drawn salary has been at Rs. 350/- per week. Usually, on Saturdays the Second Respondent/Workman's salary will be disbursed. According to the Petitioner/Respondent/Management, on 29.3.2003, the second Respondent/Workman collected his salary in cash and again on 31.3.2003, he collected the day's salary stating that he is going to Bangalore and he will return in a week and he has not returned as promised. 17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Management is that the second Respondent/Workman has been employed by it and he is only one workman and there are no other employees for the Petitioner/Management and since he has not turned up after 7th April 2003, the Petitioner/Management has reduced its work. Further the Proprietor of the Petitioner himself operated the printing press machine to complete the work already received and that a machine man is not required any more as the Petitioner/Management has virtually closed down its trade and as such the claim of the second Respondent/Workman is not sustainable and there are no arrears of pay and benefits etc. 18. The core contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Management is that since it has closed its business on account of the Second Respondent/Workman's absence, there is no scope for employing him any further. 19. It is to be noted that the person claiming protection as per Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought to have (a) a relationship of employee with an employer (b) he must be a workman coming within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, (c) the establishment in which he is employed must be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) and (iv) (d) He must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as specified u/s 25(B) of Industrial Disputes Act under the employer. 20. 20. If no fault on the part of an employee, suppose he has thrown out of employment he has to be provided with compensation. The right provided u/s 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is based on humane grounds of public policy upon consideration that involuntary unemployment causes dislocation of trade and industry and may result in general economic insecurity. 21. The requirements of valid Retrenchments are as follows: (i) one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice; (ii) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days, average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and (iii) notice to the appropriate government in the prescribed manner. 22. It is well settled principle in law that the Section 25(F) imposes mandatory duty on the part of an employer, which is a condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman. In short, the violation of mandatory ingredients of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act will invalidate the retrenchment and render it void ab initio as per decision in Auro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Nasic v. RV Gadeka 1992 Lab IC 1364 23. Also an employer cannot take advantage of the Standing Orders providing for 48 hours' notice for termination of service of the workman in the face of the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Act which provides for one month's notice for retrenchment of a workman as per decision in KP Das & Co. Ltd., v. Howrah zillah Loha Karkhana Mazdoor Congress (1956) 1 LLJ 679 (LAT). 24. In this connection it is not out of place for this Court to make a mention that the question of retrenchment compensation is relevant only when the employment is regular. There can be no compensation in case of employment of temporary character as per decision in National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1970 Lab IC 907 (Pat) (DB). 25. There is no impediment in law to prevent a workman from deriving the double benefit, one under a Gratuity Scheme and other as compensation for retrenchment. 26. It is for the workman to prove that he has not been gainfully employed during the pendency of proceedings. A termination of a casual employee or a Daily Wager who has completed 240 days will amount to Retrenchment. 26. It is for the workman to prove that he has not been gainfully employed during the pendency of proceedings. A termination of a casual employee or a Daily Wager who has completed 240 days will amount to Retrenchment. A termination of service of a Workman on the ground of unauthorized absent amounts to retrenchment. Also a termination of workman having worked for six years, without retrenchment compensation will be a illegal one, in the considered opinion of this Court. 27. Normally, if there is non compliance of 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, workman will be entitled to the relief of Retrenchment with full back wages and continuity of service. Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 applies even to a temporary or a adhoc employee. However, workman's service is terminated in a undue haste indulging in unfair labour practice and without following to requirements of Section 25F of Industrial Act then he is entitled to claim back wages. 28. The evidence of W.W.1(Workman) is to the effect that he has been terminated from service by the Petitioner/Management on 30.3.2003 and his last drawn salary per month has been at Rs. 1,900/- and before his termination, no notice has been issued to him. No compensation has been paid to him and moreover, at the time of his termination, his bonus and salary arrears have not been paid to him. 29. It is the evidence of M.W.1 (owner of Petitioner/Management) that the Second Respondent/Workman joined in the Petitioner's printing press during the year December 1975 and it does not remember how much salary the Second Respondent/Workman has been receiving at that time and lastly workman received a monthly salary of Rs. 1,900/- per month and that they have not terminated the Second Respondent/Workman from service and on 31.3.2002. The Second Respondent/workman after receiving his arrears of salary has informed him that he is going to an outstation and after that he has not returned for the job. 30. M.W.2 (Owner of Sri Kamakodi Printers) in his evidence has stated that the Second Respondent/Workman (WW1) has been employed in his printing press from September 2003 and that he was paid daily salary of Rs. 60/- and vouchers are given for every week and the Second Respondent/Workman is known to him in his printing press. 31. 30. M.W.2 (Owner of Sri Kamakodi Printers) in his evidence has stated that the Second Respondent/Workman (WW1) has been employed in his printing press from September 2003 and that he was paid daily salary of Rs. 60/- and vouchers are given for every week and the Second Respondent/Workman is known to him in his printing press. 31. Admittedly, the Second Respondent/Workman has not been issued with any notice mentioning that he has remained unauthorisedly absent in not attending work with the Petitioner/Management though the Petitioner/Management has stated in their counter that it has closed down its trade and because of the absence of the second Respondent/workman which has closed its business and there is no scope for employing him any further. 32. Ex.W.4 series, namely, the marriage invitation show that the Petitioner/Management press has not yet been closed and still continues to do its business in printing. Therefore, the plea taken by the Petitioner/Management that its business has been closed is factually incorrect one and the same is unworthy of acceptance by this Court. 33. Coming to the aspect that even though the Second Respondent/workman puts forward a case that he has been employed as a Salesman with the Petitioner/Management from 10.7.1970 to 30.3.2003, the Petitioner/Management in its counter has stated that the second Respondent/Workman has worked only from 1.12.1975 etc. In regard to the fact that the Second Respondent/Workman has been working with the Petitioner/Management from 10.7.1970, there is no satisfactory proof produced on his side before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 203 of 2003. In regard to the fact that the Second Respondent/Workman has been working with the Petitioner/Management from 10.7.1970, there is no satisfactory proof produced on his side before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 203 of 2003. However, in view of the tacit admission made by the Petitioner/Management in their counter that the Second Respondent/Workman has been employed with them from 1.12.1975 even though this Court is of the considered view that in the instant case on hand, the Petitioner/Management printing press has not followed the Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act pertaining to retrenchment and therefore, the Petitioner/Management even in case the second Respondent/Workman has not returned for duty should have issued notice to him and in case of non compliance of relevant Provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, the case of the Second Respondent/Workman that he has been terminated from service on 31.3.2003 without any reason is to be accepted and the very fact that in the reply to the lawyer's notice sent by the Workman, the same has not been mentioned by the Petitioner/Management is clearly on adverse factor which goes against the Management and in short, the version projected by the Second Respondent/workman in his evidence that he has been terminated unreasonably from 31.3.2003 is accepted by this Court. However, since the Petitioner is now working with M.W2 from September 2003 on a daily wage of Rs. 60/- this Court in view of the love lost relationship between the Petitioner and the second Respondent is not ordering for re-instatement to the Second Respondent/Workman but awards a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the Second Respondent/Workman which will certainly be a fair and adequate compensation to the Second Respondent/Workman and looking it from any angle, the award passed by the first Respondent in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 dated 31.3.2005 does not suffered from any serious material irregularity and illegality. Consequently the Writ Petition sans merits. 34. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the award passed by the First Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 dated 31.3.2005 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. The Petitioner/Management is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 34. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the award passed by the First Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 203 of 2003 dated 31.3.2005 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Petition. The Petitioner/Management is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the second Respondent/Workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it is open to the Second Respondent/Workman to take appropriate further proceedings against the Petitioner/Management in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.