JUDGMENT : This is an intra court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.103982/2014(S-DIS). The matter is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent was appointed on contract basis temporarily on consolidated payment. However, the services of the respondent were discontinued by the appellant as his services were not required. The respondent challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.14889/1995, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Again, the respondent filed W.P.No.2529/1999, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 03.02.1999. The respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred W.P.No.65004/2011, which also came to be rejected by an order dated 05.09.2012 against which, W.A.No.31091/2012 (L-TER) was filed by the respondent. The said writ appeal was allowed observing that the order passed by the Division Bench shall not amount to granting any special status, regularization or permanence in service to the respondent herein and it will be open for the appellant to terminate his service in accordance with law, if his services were not required or if he has crossed the age of superannuation. However, it was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service with 25% of backwages for last 8 years within the period of 2 months from the date of the order. Subsequent to which the appellant passed an order of reinstatement on 21.08.2013 and an order of retrenchment on 11.09.2013. The respondent challenged the order of retrenchment in W.P.No.103982/2014(S-DIS), which came to be allowed quashing the order dated 11.09.2013. It was further directed that the appellant shall reinstate the respondent to his original post with all back wages and continuity of services along with an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. It was further directed that the appellant shall reinstate the respondent to his original post with all back wages and continuity of services along with an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel Sri M.A. Hulyal appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that the appellant has passed an order of retrenchment on 11.09.2013 strictly in compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) and thereby paid the compensation amount and one month salary in lieu of notice to the respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the legal requirements have been thrown to the wind by the appellant and there is no indication in the order, whether the conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Act have been complied with by the appellant. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the order of retrenchment is tainted with malafides contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The learned counsel placed much emphasis on the Division Bench ruling of this Court in W.A.No.31091/2012 (D.D. on 24.06.2013) whereby the liberty was provided to the appellant to terminate the service of the respondent in accordance with law, if his services were not required. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, in compliance with the order of the Division Bench, by tendering a sum of Rs.31,800 (Rs.28,800+Rs.3,000) towards payment of back wages of 25% for the last 8 years and towards costs of the writ appeal along with a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation amount coupled with one month salary in lieu of notice the retrenchment order was issued. The respondent having received the said amount without any protest had filed a false and frivolous writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge without appreciating the same allowed the writ petition setting aside the retrenchment order dated 11.09.2013, which is contrary to the ruling of the Division Bench referred to, supra. It is further contended that the respondent had alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. On this ground alone, the writ petition was liable to be rejected. 4. It is further contended that the respondent had alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. On this ground alone, the writ petition was liable to be rejected. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri K.L.Patil appearing for the respondent justifying the impugned order submitted that it is mandatory for the appellant to comply the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while passing the retrenchment order. According to the learned counsel, no notice was issued as per the provisions of Section 25-F, referring to the communication dated 30.08.2014 obtained through R.T.I. Act, submitted that no notice was issued to the respondent while passing the retrenchment order and no consent was taken by the government or authority before reinstating or retrenching the respondent. The learned single Judge considering these aspects in a right perspective has held that the malafide attitude of the appellant is depicted in the order itself as the respondent has reinstated the petitioner on 21.08.2013 and retrenched him on 11.09.2013 in violation of the provisions of the Act, which do not call for any interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. Section 25-F of the Act runs thus; 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. – No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service 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 of 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.) 6. Section 25-F(a) of the Act contemplates that one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment shall be mandatory or the workman has to be paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. Section 25-F(a) of the Act contemplates that one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment shall be mandatory or the workman has to be paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. Compliance of either of the two conditions provided under Section 25-F(a) of the Act would be suffice. 7. Section 25-F(a) of the Act does not provide for both the conditions specified therein to be complied with. The phrase ‘or’ employed in the provision makes it clear that even if the 2nd condition is fulfilled, there is compliance of Section 25-F(a) of the Act. The 2nd condition being fulfilled, it cannot be held that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and the retrenchment order is not in accordance with law. 8. It is not in dispute that, in the earlier round of litigation, the matter has reached upto the Division Bench in W.A.No.31091/2012, while setting aside the dismissal order of the Labour Court, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with 25% backwages for the last 8 years. However, it was clarified that the said order shall not amount to granting any special status, regularization or permanence in service to the respondent and an opportunity was provided to the respondent to terminate his service in accordance with law, if his services were not required or he has crossed the age of superannuation. It is the case of the appellant that his services were not required and accordingly in lieu of notice under Section 25-F(a), a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation amount along with one month salary was tendered which has been encashed/received by the respondent without any protest. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has tendered a sum of Rs.31,800/- (28,000+3,000) towards payment of backwages of 25% for the last 8 years and towards cost of the writ appeal. This material aspect was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that there was no compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Considering the act of the appellant reinstating the workman and retrenching from service within a period of one month held that the order of retrenchment suffers from malafides. Considering the act of the appellant reinstating the workman and retrenching from service within a period of one month held that the order of retrenchment suffers from malafides. Had this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, it would have been viewed differently. The learned Single Judge was of the view that there was no compliance of Section 25-F of the Act despite the observations/clarifications made by the Division Bench imposing the costs of Rs.3,000/-. 9. We are convinced that the defect pointed out by the Division Bench has been cured while issuing the retrenchment order on 11.09.2013. The communication dated 30.08.2014 referred to, by the learned counsel for the respondent only indicates that no notice was issued before passing of the order dated 11.09.2013, terminating the services of the respondent. Further, it is stated that no consent was taken from the Government/authority while appointing or retrenching the respondent in lieu of the wages/compensation paid in lieu of notice, non-issuance of one month notice to the workman would not be fatal to issue the retrenchment order if the alternate condition is complied with. Consent of the government is not the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act for reinstating or retrenching the workman. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The order of retrenchment dated 11.09.2013 passed by the appellant is confirmed. Writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.