JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, Judge The challenge herein in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the award dated 27.11.2007, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in reference No. 37/2002. The terms of reference for adjudication before the learned court below were as under:- “Whether the dismissal of the services of Shri Bhopal Singh by the management of M/s Nahan Ferro Alloys and Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. Kala-Amb Distt. Sirmaur due to his absence from service w.e.f. April 2000 to November 2000 without any sanctioned leave and information is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and compensation the above workman is entitled to?” 2. Admittedly, the petitioner, who shall here-in-after be referred to as ‘the workman’, was earlier in the employment of contractor Shri Rajinder Singh. Later on, he joined the respondent-Company, where he worked for over one year uptill March/April 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he fell ill in April 2000. Initially, he was treated in the hospital at Sidhora and was thereafter shifted to Himalayan Institute Dehradun, where he underwent major operation and remained under treatment between April 2000 to October 2000. However, according to the respondent-management, the workman had voluntarily abandoned the employment and had joined some other establishment at Derabassi. His wife had visited the factory to settle his dues and had orally informed that he was seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital. 3. In the face of the above rival contentions, the matter is required to be viewed in the light of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’), which is as under:- “25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. 3. In the face of the above rival contentions, the matter is required to be viewed in the light of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’), which is as under:- “25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 4. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent-management to have served one month’s notice in writing upon the workman indicating the reasons for retrenchment and in addition thereto, he was also required to be paid wages for the period of the notice, besides compensation under clause (b) of Section 25F of the said Act. However, it was not done. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that the workman was in the employment of the respondent-management for a period of “not less than one year”. Thus, non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, which are mandatory in nature, per se, render the retrenchment of the workman as vitiated. 6. In view of the above, I do not see any lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned award dated 27.11.2007, ordering reinstatement of the workman sans seniority and back-wages. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.