ORDER : NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 13.07.2016 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4042/2013. The learned Single Judge set aside the award dated 10.09.2012 of the Labour Court, Ist Jaipur directing reinstatement of the Appellant for retrenchment contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that retrenchment compensation was never paid to the Appellant. The award of the Labour Court therefore calls for no interference. If there is no infirmity in the decision making process by the Labour Court, the High Court essentially exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution ought not to have set aside the award. It is denied that compensation was ever paid to the Appellant through his father Sedu Ram much less that it was paid to Sedu Ram at any point of time. The Respondents for the first time in their reply to the writ petition by Annexure-R/1 sought to suggest that the retrenchment compensation payable to the Appellant had allegedly been paid and collected by his father Sedu Ram which is factually incorrect. 3. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that no rejoinder to the counter affidavit was filed denying or disputing the stand of the Respondents that the compensation money was paid to Sedu Ram with regard to four retrenched employees one of whom was the Appellant. The other three employees had not denied receiving of retrenchment compensation through Sedu Ram. Therefore by implication, the retrenchment compensation also stands paid to the Appellant. In absence of any reply filed by the Appellant traversing and denying these facts mentioned in the counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge committed no error in arriving at a finding of a fraud played by the duo of father and son to get the benefit of retrenchment compensation and simultaneously reinstatement also. 4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 5. Section 25-F of the Act provides that no workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year shall be retrenched by the employer unless the 'workman' has been given one month's notice in writing or the 'workman' has been paid in lieu of such notice. The statute therefore clearly provides that entitlement to retrenchment compensation or notice and compensation vests in the 'workman' alone. The statute therefore clearly provides that entitlement to retrenchment compensation or notice and compensation vests in the 'workman' alone. Therefore the retrenchment compensation or the notice mentioned therein cannot be paid or given to any other except the 'workman' concerned. If the employer adopts a non statutory mode for payment of retrenchment compensation it does so at its own peril. It is trite law that if the statute prescribes a procedure for an act to be done, it can be done only in the manner prescribed and other modes of the performance are necessarily forbidden. 6. Even before the Labour Court, the Respondents took the objection that the retrenchment compensation payable to the Appellant had been paid to his father Sedu Ram. The Tribunal discussing that aspect in paragraph 11 arrived at the conclusion that despite opportunity no evidence had been led in support of the same. Merely because the calculation may have been placed by the Respondents before the Tribunal would not tantamount to payment. 7. In the writ petition preferred against the award it was contended in Ground (D) that the Labour Court committed grave illegality in holding that the retrenchment compensation had not been paid ignoring the calculations and the payment claimed to have been made to his father Sedu Ram who was working as a Store Keeper in the same establishment. As noticed above, the findings of the Labour Court were based on application of mind, appreciation of evidence and discussion of reasons. None of these three findings were assailed in the writ petition and neither was any apology of an explanation offered that if Annexure-R/1 was available with the Respondents in proof of payment to the Appellant's father, why it was not produced before the Labour Court. 8. The principle of non-traverse applied by the learned Single Judge would have had at its relevance if the facts were not in dispute. If the foundational and primary facts necessary to be brought on record by the Respondents was withheld and no reasonable explanation was offered for the same, it is difficult to arrive at any positive conclusion regarding retrenchment compensation paid to the Appellant received through his father Sedu Ram. Since the Respondents adopted a non-statutory procedure for discharge of statutory duties and have failed to convince the Court, the order under appeal based on the application of the principle of fraud is not sustainable. 9. Since the Respondents adopted a non-statutory procedure for discharge of statutory duties and have failed to convince the Court, the order under appeal based on the application of the principle of fraud is not sustainable. 9. Fraud is a question of fact. Whether it will require further evidence in a particular case or not will depend upon the facts of that particular case. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether there has been a fraud practised by the father and son duo or by the father alone is a matter for further investigation and inquiry and appropriate action as may be necessary dependent on the result of such inquiry. 10. We therefore set aside the order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. 11. But, since the matter relates to employment on a public post the payment for which is made from the tax payer’s money, if an issue has been raised with regard to fraud practiced in obtaining payments, the matter has necessarily to be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Nothing precludes the Respondents from holding an inquiry to their satisfaction in accordance with law and proceeding under the civil/criminal laws of the land also as may be required depending on the result of such inquiry against the concerned.