ORDER : 1. The award dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman on the ground that the compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1947’) has not been made in totality, meaning thereby, while the amount was tendered on the day of retrenchment, the same was insufficient. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was a daily wager the amount calculated on the basis of the work which he could have done in a month i.e. 26 days was calculated and the compensation amount has also been calculated and no fault can be attributed to such an amount which was tendered at the same time while issuing order of retrenchment. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman referred to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 which reads 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. In view thereof, the amount has to be computed on the basis of 30 days and not for a lesser period. Admittedly the amount which has been tendered was not for wages of 30 days nor the compensation was calculated on the basis of wages of 15 days for each year. Thus, the order of retrenchment was vitiated being in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. 5. Admittedly the amount which has been tendered was not for wages of 30 days nor the compensation was calculated on the basis of wages of 15 days for each year. Thus, the order of retrenchment was vitiated being in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. 5. I have reflected over the submissions made by both the parties and find that apparently there are some typographical errors in the award but the admitted position which is culled out from the pleadings which has been put up by the workman as well as the petitioner-department is that the services of the workman were dispensed with vide order dated 31.12.1992 w.e.f. 1.1.1993 and while dispensing with the service, a draft was also prepared of an amount that the service rendered by the workman from 1.7.1989 to 31.12.1992 which was calculated by counting 26 days instead of 30 days and the compensation was also counted by calculating wages 13 days each year instead of 15 days. 6. The issue is no more res integra. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Singh Vs. Director, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Regional Centre, Ajmer 2017(3) WLC (Raj.) 268 while examining the identical issue found that the amount tendered for 26 days instead of 30 days was insufficient within the meaning of Section 25-F and the due compliance of Section 25F(a) & (b) has not been made by the petitioner. This one month is to be treated as 30 days and compensation has to be calculated as 15 days for each year. 7. The other contention which the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised is that vide letter dated 25.01.1993 the workman was asked to rejoin duties as a fresh hand. The workman has chosen to ignore the said order. Learned Counsel for the workman submits that since the offer was of appointing him as a fresh appointee and that too on adhoc basis his earlier period of service was being discounted, therefore, reasonable ground existed for the workman not to join. 8. In my view, the workman ought to have taken up the employment and challenge the action of not counting his previous service. However, it appears that he was ill-advised. 8. In my view, the workman ought to have taken up the employment and challenge the action of not counting his previous service. However, it appears that he was ill-advised. The effect of the such inaction on the part of the workman would result in the modification of the award which has been passed by the labour Court No.2, Jaipur dated 20.11.1999 to the extent of denial of backwages. 9. Accordingly, while upholding the findings of the labour Court with regard to the wrongful retrenchment, the backwages part is denied and the award is accordingly modified. The workman would be entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and other benefits which similarly placed persons were awarded. Further backwages shall not be paid to him. It is made clear that if similarly placed persons have been declared permanent during the intervening period, the petitioner’s pay fixation shall be fixed notionally in view of denial of backwages and actual wages shall be paid from passing of the award dated 20.11.1999. Compliance shall be made within three months. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.