ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the awared dated 12.2.2005 passed in Reference Case No. 12 of 1993 by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner holding that the termination of the petitioner's service was proper and she is not entitled to any relief. 3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner-workman are that the petitioner's husband Late Sri Paras Nath was engaged as daily rated workman by the respondent- management. However, he died in an accident on 15.7.1981 and the petitioner- workman was appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband. According to the petitioner she was employed in March, 1982 and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 330/- along with D.A., which was revisable every 6 months. It is the case of the petitioner that she was suddenly terminated vide letter dated 21.6.1983 w.e.f 23.6.1983 and hence, the discharge order is illegal and in violation of provision of Industrial Dispute Act of 1947. The workman further pleaded that she was given assurance by the employer but she was never reemployed . According to the workman she was not given 1 month notice and retrenchment compensation. The workman- petitioner during the course of reference adduced evidence in the nature of letter of the management dated 7.4.1988 (Ext. W), letter dated 10.5.1984 (Ext. W/1), letter dated 18.7.1983 [Ext.W/1(a)], letter dated 21.6.1983 [Ext.W/1(b)]. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the employer- management did not comply with the provision of Section 25(F) before termination of the petitioner, which amounts to retrenchment. 4. On the other hand, case of the management is that on the death of the petitioner's husband in an accident, on the request of sub contractor the company deposited the amount of compensation before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and petitioner was engaged on temporary basis w.e.f. 7.4.1981 as 'reza' on the humanitarian ground for supplying drinking water to Daily Rated / Temporary Workmen. Petitioner worked till 16.5.1983 and when the site work was over, there was no work left for her. Accordingly, she was retrenched and all her dues as per the provision of law were paid to her. Therefore, termination of service of petitioner is proper and justified in accordance with law. 5. Petitioner worked till 16.5.1983 and when the site work was over, there was no work left for her. Accordingly, she was retrenched and all her dues as per the provision of law were paid to her. Therefore, termination of service of petitioner is proper and justified in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- management has also submitted on the basis of the affidavit that the petitioner- company has been declared as sick industry under the provision of Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by order dated 14.9.1992 passed by the BIFR, which has recommended for winding up the company and referred the matter to Allahabad High Court for necessary action vide Annexure -1 to the counter affidavit. The appeal against the same by the employees union has been dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 2.8.2005 and winding up application has been registered as Misc. Company Application No. 08 of 2003 before the Company's Court. It is further contended by the respondent- management that the Promoter Ministry i.e. Department of Heavy Industries, New Delhi, Government of India vide order dated 19.12.2000 has already banned fresh recruitment even against the vacancies arising out of VRS/ retirement. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that on the basis of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the requirement of Section 25(F) was complied and 1 month salary was also paid to her, therefore, no further notice was required to be given to the workman. 6. The reference in question is quoted herein below:- “Whether the termination of services of Shrimati Sukhia Devi, workman, M/s Triveni Structurals Ltd; TISCO Site, Jamshedpur is proper ? If, not , whether she should be reinstated on work or / and should get compensation”. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the sole question which arises in this case is that whether the employer has failed to comply the provision of law under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act by not giving 1 month notice or wages in lieu, thereof and learned Labour Court has completely misdirected itself in arriving at a finding otherwise on consideration of the issue raised by the petitioner without proper appreciation of the evidences adduced by the parties as has been found by the Labour Court during the proceeding in the instant reference. 8. 8. From perusal of the impugned award it appears that workman- petitioner had adduced the exhibits dated 7.4.1988 (Ext. W), letter dated 10.5.1984 (Ext. W/1), letter dated 18.7.1983 [Ext.W/1(a)], letter dated 21.6.1983 [Ext.W/1(b)], being letters of the management. Learned Labour Court has taken note of the fact that the letter dated 7.4.1988 and 10.5.1984 were in response to the representation of the workman, but she has neither filed letter nor representation before the Labour Court. It has been also found that the services of the workman was terminated w.e.f. 23.6.1983 vide letter dated 21.6.1983[Ext. W/1(b)]. The management has adduced 2 witnesses being M.W.1 and M.W.2. Learned Labour Court also recorded the finding in para 4 of the award that workman has been paid all her dues, but no suggestion was given to the witnesses by the workman against the statement. Learned Labour Court after perusal of Ext. W/1(b) and Ext. M/4a found that the company was required to complete all the works by 15.3.1983 and formal commissioning of the shop constructed by the company was due to be done on 23.3.1983 and in that view of the matter, by letter dated 21.6.1983 Ext. W/1(b) workman was informed that work at the side was over and her service was not required from 23.6.1983. She was further requested to collect all her dues from the office on 23.6.1989. Learned Labour Court found that the said exhibits were filed by the workman herself, that shows that she was properly informed to collect her dues . The workman- petitioner, in her written statement has nowhere stated about the steps taken by her to collect the dues. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that before termination of the service on 23.6.1983 the workman was duly informed to collect all her dues vide letter dated 21.6.1983 being Ext. W/1(b) which itself was adduced as evidence on her behalf, but she has failed to answer as to the steps taken on the part of the workman to collect the dues. In the wake of the aforesaid findings, learned Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the management has complied with the requirement of Section 25(F) by giving proper notice to the workman before her termination on 23.6.1983 asking her to collect all her dues. In the wake of the aforesaid findings, learned Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the management has complied with the requirement of Section 25(F) by giving proper notice to the workman before her termination on 23.6.1983 asking her to collect all her dues. It is also supported by the evidence of MW.2 against which no suggestion was given by the workman. In the wake of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the parties and specifically the workman herself the Labour Court came to a conclusion that contention of the workman that the management has not complied with the provision of Industrial Dispute Act before termination was not made out and the reference was accordingly, answered against the workman. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment o the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Anoop Sharma Vrs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat(Haryana) reported in (2010)5 SCC 497 in support of his contention that service of the notice or compensation in lieu of the notice period is prerequisite before terminating the service of any workman under Section 25(F), failure to comply it would render the termination itself illegal and nullity in the eye of law. However, from the persual of the para 23 of the instant judgment itself it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in the instant case before terminating the workman the management did not give him notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. 11. In the case at hand from perusal of the record as well as on perusal of the award it appears that the workman herself came with the letter dated 21.6.1983, whereby she was informed that her service will not be required from 23.6.1983(Ext.W/1(b) and was asked her to collect her dues from the office. However, the workman has nowhere stated what steps was taken by her to collect her dues. Therefore, the requirement as contemplated under Section 25(F) was complied by the management and on that score the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is not convincing. 12. However, the workman has nowhere stated what steps was taken by her to collect her dues. Therefore, the requirement as contemplated under Section 25(F) was complied by the management and on that score the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is not convincing. 12. In the wake of aforesaid finding of facts the contention of the petitioner that the requirement of Section 25(F) was not followed before termination of the service of the petitioner does not seems to be proper and the impugned award does not suffers from error apparent on the face of the record nor there is apparent illegality or perversity in the impugned award so as to warrant interference. 13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.