ORDER : Under challenge is the award dated 11-12-2012 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal Ajmer (hereinafter `the Tribunal') in LCR No.26/2009 whereby the petitioner's claim of his retrenchment by the respondent University being illegal and improper and seeking reinstatement has been dismissed. The petitioner was a muster-roll employee with the respondent University between 1-9-1991 and 31-1-1993. He was retrenched by a reasoned order dated 30-1-1993 effective 1-2-1993. The order dated 30-1-1993 clearly sought to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the 1947 Act'), whereby consequent to his retrenchment, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.974/- vide draft No.839922 dated 29-1-1993, constituted of Rs.634/- towards a month's wage in lieu of notice period and Rs.340/- towards 15 days wages as compensation, the petitioner having worked for year as provided for under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act prior to his retrenchment. The retrenchment under order dated 30-1-1993 was belatedly put to challenge by the petitioner after 10 years, 2 months seeking to raise industrial dispute under the provisions of the 1947 Act. The government in the first instance declined taking cognizance of the dispute and refused to make reference vide order dated 27-10-2004 for reason of it being inordinately delayed. SBCWP No.4076/2006 at the instance of the petitioner followed and was allowed by this court vide order dated 15-7-2009. The Government's order dated 27-10-2004 declining reference of the petitioner's dispute under the Act of 1947 was quashed and set aside and it was required to reconsider the matter dehors the delay. Thereon, the government passed an order for reference of the dispute to the Tribunal Ajmer vide order dated 29-10-2010. The reference was under:- ^^D;k izkFkhZ Jfed Jh x.ks’k flag iq= Lo- Jh Hks: flag jkor fuoklh ,y vkbZ lh dkWyksuh gfj;k.kk Hkou ds ikl xka/kh uxj xyh ua- 1 oS’kkyh uxj vtesj dks vizkFkhZ&1 funs’kd o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo'ofo|ky; {ks=h; dsanz vtesj] 2 jftLVªkj o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo’ofo|ky; dksVk jkt0 }kjk fnukad 1-2-1993 ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks] Jfed fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** The petitioner laid his claim alleging contravention of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the 1947 Act and the respondent University filed a reply of denial. The petitioner examined himself as AW-1—the sole witness, and the University also examined its sole witness Surendra Mathur as NAW-1. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence before it, the Tribunal vide order dated 11-12-2012 dismissed the petitioner's claim finding neither contravention of Section 25F nor 25G and 25H of the 1947 Act. Hence this writ petition. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that finding of the Tribunal holding that the petitioner was paid one month's salary in lieu of one month notice period in terms of Section 25F (a) of the 1947 Act is perverse to the evidence on record and in the cross-hairs of the judgment of this court on the manner of computation in lieu of one month's salary as determined in the case of Devendra Salolia Vs. State of Rajasthan [1990(1) RLR 734]. Counsel submitted that the respondent University did not calculate the wages for the notice period of one month as mandated by Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act as wages paid to petitioner was for 26 days, when it ought to have been for full 30 days. He submitted that the petitioner was paid only Rs.634/- as wages in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act when it ought to have been paid Rs.680/-. It has been submitted that it has been specifically held by this court in case of Devendra Salolia (supra) that wages in lieu of notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act should be for 30 days and not 26 days. The petitioner was paid 26 days wages in lieu of notice period and hence award dated 11-12-2012 holding to the contrary and finding the petitioner's retrenchment compliant with Section 25F of the 1947 Act is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. No other ground either with regard to compensation payable under Section 25F(b) or with regard to 25G and 25H of the 1947 Act has been raised in the course of arguments. It may however in place to record that the impugned award dated 11-12-2012 has rightly concluded that from the evidence on record neither of the said grounds were made out as the petitioner had admitted to payment of due compensation (Rs.340/-) under Section 25F(b) of the 1947 Act. It may however in place to record that the impugned award dated 11-12-2012 has rightly concluded that from the evidence on record neither of the said grounds were made out as the petitioner had admitted to payment of due compensation (Rs.340/-) under Section 25F(b) of the 1947 Act. Further those appointed subsequent to petitioner's removal were either in terms of judgment of a court or otherwise regularly appointed by due processes while the petitioner was a muster-roll employee at the time of his retrenchment on 30-1-1993. Mrs. Anita Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the respondent University has submitted that the award dated 11-12-2012 passed by the Tribunal is well considered and based on evidence on record. And the argument of petitioner's counsel as to non-compliance with Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act is misplaced. It has been submitted that the petitioner as per vouchers annexed with writ petition was evidently being paid a monthly wage of Rs.588.90. And merely because the monthly wage of Rs.588.90 paid to the petitioner was calculated on the basis of a daily wage @ Rs.22.65 for a period of 26 days is of no event. Counsel submitted that whatever the mode of computation of monthly wage, it cannot be disputed that it was Rs.588.90. For compliance with Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act at the time of retrenchment of the petitioner, the petitioner could have been thus entitled only to Rs.588.90 in lieu of a month's notice. He was paid Rs.634/-. Counsel has submitted that as the petitioner was a muster-roll employee, his wage for the each month, in accordance with the mandate of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and notification issued thereunder were computed at the rate of Rs.22.65 for 26 days to also cover up and provide for wages for the four non-working days in a month. Rs.22.65 as daily wage was more than the wage for the day's work as included in it was part wage for the 4 non-working days. It was submitted that under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the methodology is so mandated and adopted by all and sundry. Counsel has further submitted that a contrary interpretation would lead to the absurdity of the monthly wage for the petitioner as a muster-roll employee being Rs.588.90 during his employment and Rs.679.50 when paid in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. Counsel has further submitted that a contrary interpretation would lead to the absurdity of the monthly wage for the petitioner as a muster-roll employee being Rs.588.90 during his employment and Rs.679.50 when paid in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. Counsel submitted that the judgment of this court in the case of Devendra Salolia (supra) is not the correct statement of law unsustainable as it did not take into account the interpretative absurdity as detailed hereinabove in computing payment in lieu of monthly wage under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act at the time of retrenchment. Counsel emphasised that in the case at hands, from the annexures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 filed by the petitioner it is an admitted fact that the petitioner's monthly wages for the months of September, October and November 1992 were Rs.588.90 each month. The attempt to impugn the legality of the retrenchment dated 30-1-1993 for the respondent University's failure to pay an amount at Rs.679.50 in lieu of one month wages therefore is wholly misdirected and without merit. Attention of this court has also been drawn to the admission of the petitioner before the Tribunal wherein he stated that each monthly payment was based on 26 days salary:- ^^;g lgh gS fd eq>s Nchl fnu dk osru fn;k tkrk FkkA** It is submitted that the petitioner was thus not a daily wager so to say but paid on monthly basis. The question that arises in the present case is as to what was the petitioner's monthly wage at the time of his retrenchment was which was liable to be paid to him in lieu of one month's notice period as one of the condition for his retrenchment under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act? The monthly wage of a workman is a question of fact, i.e. dependent upon direct evidence on record not on discovery by an arithmetical exercise. The evidence on record in the case at hands, before the Tribunal as also before this court as set out in annexures 2,3,4,5 and 6 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner, as a muster-roll employee, was being paid Rs.588.90 each month. The evidence on record in the case at hands, before the Tribunal as also before this court as set out in annexures 2,3,4,5 and 6 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner, as a muster-roll employee, was being paid Rs.588.90 each month. I find no force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner was being paid a monthly wage of Rs.588.90, yet the payment of wage in lieu of one month's notice would entitle him to a higher amount of Rs.679.50. This court in the case of Devendra Salolia (supra) has however held that an employee being paid monthly wages computed on basis of 26 working days was entitled for 30 days wage as wage in lieu of one month's notice for the reason that the word “month” in Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act would be 30 not 26 days. And non payment of 30 days wages would be non compliance of Section 25F (a) of the 1947 Act. So holding the court concluded that as the petitioner therein employed on muster roll on pay of Rs.603/- per month ought to have been paid Rs.696/- in lieu of a month's notice mandated under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. The conclusion of the Court were arrived at on a backward arithmetical calculation dividing the monthly wage by 26 working days to arrive at a daily wage of Rs.23.20 and then multiplying the daily wage so worked out by a factor of 30 for reason of a month being taken as 30 days. The court thus worked out a payment of Rs.696/- payable in lieu of one month's notice against the actual admitted monthly wage of Rs.603/- and declared the retrenchment of the petitioner before it illegal and in contravention of Section 25F (a) of the 1947 Act. To my mind, where a monthly wage is paid to an employee, the amount so paid alone is to be reckoned for the purpose of payment of one month's notice pay under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act as rightly argued by the counsel for the respondent University. To my mind, where a monthly wage is paid to an employee, the amount so paid alone is to be reckoned for the purpose of payment of one month's notice pay under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act as rightly argued by the counsel for the respondent University. A contra interpretation based on arithmetic and unraveling a monthly wage, breaking it up into a daily wage to then recompute the monthly wage by a multiplier of 30 would lead to payment in lieu of a monthly wage under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act being more than the monthly wage paid during employment. Aside of the aforesaid, it appears that the learned Single Judge in the case of Devendra Salolia (supra) did not consider the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereunder in terms of Section 5 the State Government is entitled to notify both monthly wages as also daily wages qua a notified work/ job. Therein while computing a daily wage vis-a-vis a monthly wage, 26 days are reckoned for the purpose of ensuring that payment of wages for 26 days, also covers the wages for the four non working days. Hence wages for the 4 non-working days are reflected in the wages paid for 26 days. Thus the monthly wage under the Act of 1948 is wages based on 26 working days. In the case of Guru Jambeshwar University Vs. Dharam Pal [ (2007)2 SCC 265 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the language of a provision of law was plain and clear and without any ambiguity the rule of strict construction applied and provision had to be literally interpreted. This should so be while interpreting Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. That would be the monthly wage payable in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. Further the judgment in the case of Jeewan Lal Vs. Appellate Authority [ (1984)4 SCC 356 ] was relied upon in Digvijay Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prataprai Buch [ (1980)4 SCC 106 ] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a different context though, that for calculating the gratuity payable, the legal requirement was to divide the average monthly wages by 26 and not by 30, as a worker ordinarily gets four weekly holidays and has to work only on 26 days in a month. Mahendra Prataprai Buch [ (1980)4 SCC 106 ] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in a different context though, that for calculating the gratuity payable, the legal requirement was to divide the average monthly wages by 26 and not by 30, as a worker ordinarily gets four weekly holidays and has to work only on 26 days in a month. More importantly, however, relevant to the case at hand, it was also generally observed that treating the monthly wage as wages for 26 working days is not new or unknown. I am thus of the considered view that where a muster-roll worker is paid a monthly wage, that wage alone would be payable in lieu of a month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act, no matter how computed— and even if computed with 26 working days. The wage paid over 26 days includes the wage for the four non working days and effectively a wage for 30 days i.e. a month for the purpose of Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act. Such monthly wage payable in lieu of a month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act cannot be reckoned on the arithmetic adopted in case of Devendra Salolia (supra) by the learned Single Judge to create the anomaly of wage in lieu of a month's notice under Section 25F(a) being higher than the monthly wage actually and admittedly received by the worker during the period of his employment. However, I cannot overrule or sidestep as a coordinate bench, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in case of Devendra Salolia (supra) as it is well settled that a coordinate bench taking a different view, for reasons of judicial discipline, should refer the matter for an authoritative pronouncement to a Larger Bench. Besides the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also in the interest of administration of justice that inconsistent views on interpretation of a provision of law should not obtain. Besides the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also in the interest of administration of justice that inconsistent views on interpretation of a provision of law should not obtain. Consequently, I would place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for making a reference to a Larger Bench for determination of the following question:- “As to whether the wage payable in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act is the monthly wage actually paid or a monthly wage re-computed with reference to a broken down daily wage multiplied by a factor of 30 such that payment in lieu of monthly wage under Section 25F (a) of the 1947 Act is higher than the actual monthly wage paid to the workman immediately prior to his retrenchment? Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate steps in the matter.