JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner-management has filed this application challenging the award dated 28.04.2003 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No. 150 of 1991 whereby the Labour Court, while holding that termination of services of opposite party no.2 workman with effect from 09.09.1989 is illegal and unjustified, directed for reinstatement in service with 50 % back wages. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no.2 workman was appointed as Farm Supervisor under the petitioner at Bhubaneswar on 18.04.1983 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 18.10.1983. While he was continuing as such, due to opening of the Sales Office at Mahatab Road, Cuttack in April, 1986, he was transferred to Cuttack as Sales Officer and assigned with the job of booking of orders, receiving cash from the poultry farmers along with rendering technical advice to them. On 05.05.1989, an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 workman before the Officer-in-charge, Madhupatna Police Station at about 8.30 p.m. stating therein that after finishing the cash transaction, while waiting to handover the sales proceeds to the officials of the Management at different junctures, three unknown persons forcibly entered into the office, tied his hands and legs at the point of knife, robbed a sum of Rs.23,924/-. After the incident, he reported the matter to the police and informed the same to the Managing Director of the Company. But subsequently, due to negligence in duty, after due investigation in the matter, he was placed under suspension from service on 10.05.1989. On the basis of the FIR lodged, the police caused investigation and submitted final report, which was communicated by the IIC of the Police Station to the petitioner management on 03.01.1990. On receipt of the said final report, opposite party no.2 workman was terminated from service w.e.f. 05.09.1989. Challenging such action of the petitioner management in terminating the services of opposite party no.2-workman, he approached the labour authorities for conciliation. The conciliation having ended with failure, the matter was referred to the Government. On receipt of the said final report, opposite party no.2 workman was terminated from service w.e.f. 05.09.1989. Challenging such action of the petitioner management in terminating the services of opposite party no.2-workman, he approached the labour authorities for conciliation. The conciliation having ended with failure, the matter was referred to the Government. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 and Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947, the State Government in Labour and Employment Department referred the matter to the Labour Court framing the following terms of reference: “Whether the termination of service of Shri Jatindra Kumar Mohanty by the Management of Kalinga Hatchery P. Ltd. Bhubaneswar with effect from 9.9.1989 is legal and/or justified ? if not, to what relief he is entitled?” On the basis of the aforementioned reference, the Labour Court called upon the petitioner management as we well as opposite party no.2 workman to participate in the proceeding and after due adjudication, the Labour Court, considering the materials placed before it, passed the final order, which reads as follows: “ Hence it is ordered: That the termination of services of the workman concerned by the management M/s. Kalinga Hachery (P) Ltd., Jail Road, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar with effect from 9.9.89 is illegal and unjustified. In such view of the matter the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% (fifty percent) back wages. The management is directed to implement the award within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. The reference is thus awarded accordingly.” 3. Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management has stated that in view of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28.04.2003, opposite party no.2 workman has already been reinstated in service, but the petitioner management is aggrieved by the direction given for payment of 50% of back wages to opposite party no.2 workman. Consequentially, it is contended that the part of the award has been complied with by reinstating opposite party no.2 workman in service, but so far as payment of back wages is concerned, since opposite party no.2 workman has not rendered any service, applying the principle of no work no pay, he is not entitled to get such benefit. Therefore, interference of this Court has been sought for in this writ application. 4. Therefore, interference of this Court has been sought for in this writ application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 workman contended that since the Labour Court, pursuant to reference made by the State Government under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has come to a conclusion that termination of services of opposite party no.2 workman is illegal and unjustified, he is entitled to get back wages as directed and therefore, the said amount should be paid to him forthwith. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. The opposite party no.2 workman having already been reinstated in service, the only question remains to be decided in this writ petition is whether he is entitled to get 50% of the back wages, as directed by the Labour Court in its award dated 28.04.2003. 7. On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is evident that admittedly, before terminating opposite party no.2 workman from service, no notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation had been paid to him, which amounts to violation of the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows: “25F. 7. On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is evident that admittedly, before terminating opposite party no.2 workman from service, no notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation had been paid to him, which amounts to violation of the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows: “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 (b) Period of the notice; (c) 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 (d) 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.” In view of the provisions contained under Section 25-F(b) of Industrial Disputes Act (1947) as stated above, it is required to fulfill the following three conditions : (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: The aforesaid conditions must be held to be mandatory before termination of a workman is given effect to. In the event of any contravention of the said mandatory requirement, the termination would be rendered void ab initio. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sohan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 4282 , the apex Court held that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates fulfillment of three conditions. The said conditions must be held to be mandatory before termination of workmen is given effect to and in the event of any contravention of said mandatory requirement, the retrenchment would be rendered void ab initio. The said conditions must be held to be mandatory before termination of workmen is given effect to and in the event of any contravention of said mandatory requirement, the retrenchment would be rendered void ab initio. The above mentioned provisions postulate that the mandatory conditions mentioned therein have to be complied with. Accordingly, the Labour Court, while answering the reference under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has come to a definite conclusion that the termination of opposite party no.2 workman is illegal and unjustified. 8. In Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1960] I L.L.J. 504 (S.C.), the apex Court held that the termination is found to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Sec. 25-F, it is imperative for the Tribunal to award the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages and it has no discretion to award any other relief. Similar view has also been taken in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1977] I L.L.J. 1 (S.C.). Since the Labour Court has come to a finding, on examination of the evidence available on record, that termination of opposite party no.2 workman was illegal and unjustified, directed for his reinstatement in service and also payment of 50% back wages to him. 9. In course of hearing a query being made by this Court, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management stated that during continuance in service opposite party no.2 was getting a sum of Rs.500/-per month, and as such, no evidence has been adduced with regard to wages paid to the workman, consequently, no computation of exact amount of entitlement of opposite party no.2 workman has been made in the present case. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 workman could not answer with regard to wages received by opposite party no.2, while he was continuing in service. Therefore, accepting that opposite party no.2 workman was being paid a sum of Rs.500/- per month as wages and taking in account the same with effect from 09.09.1989 till the award was passed, the total amount would come to around Rs.90,000/- (rupees ninety thousand). Therefore, if 50% back wages would be taken into consideration, it may come to around Rs.45,000/- (rupees forty five thousand). Therefore, if 50% back wages would be taken into consideration, it may come to around Rs.45,000/- (rupees forty five thousand). Therefore, this Court thinks it proper to direct the petitioner management to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) inclusive of interest towards back wages to opposite party no.2 workman, which shall be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.