ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2009, passed by the first respondent in T.N.S.E.A. No. 5 of 2009. 2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was appointed as clerk in the petitioner's Society, on 10.08.2005, by the then Board of Management. When the petitioner joined as a Special Officer of the Society, it was learnt that the second respondent was not appointed in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to take appropriate action, against the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent terminated from service, by order, dated 28.03.2009. 3. According to the petitioner, since the appointment of the second respondent was irregular and illegal and she has no right to lien over the job. As against the termination, dated 28.03.2009, the second respondent has preferred an appeal, under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, before the first respondent and it is the case of the petitioner that a detailed counter statement was filed before the first respondent and relevant records were also produced. 4. According to the petitioner, without examining the counter statement, as well as the supporting documents, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 20.07.2009, setting aside the termination order, 28.03.2009. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 5. Heard Mr. P. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Ms.N. Theja, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. This Court has examined the termination order, dated 28.03.2009, passed by the petitioner terminating the service of the second respondent and has also examined the impugned order, dated 20.07.2009, passed by the first respondent in T.N.S.E.A. No.5 of 2009. As seen from the termination order, dated 28.03.2009, passed by the petitioner, it is evidently that no notice was given by the petitioner nor charges framed against the second respondent, before issuing the termination order. The first respondent in the impugned order, dated 20.07.2009 in T.N.S.E.A. No.5 of 2009 has also observed that no notice was given to the second respondent and the statutory one month wages also not paid by the petitioner to the second respondent, before passing the termination order. 7. The first respondent in the impugned order, dated 20.07.2009 in T.N.S.E.A. No.5 of 2009 has also observed that no notice was given to the second respondent and the statutory one month wages also not paid by the petitioner to the second respondent, before passing the termination order. 7. Under Section, 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, before retrenching the workman, the employer has to give one month notice in writing, undertaking the reasons for retrenchment and further for the said period of one month wages will have to be paid to the workman. 8. Section, 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, reads as follows: “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 untill-- (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.] 9. In the instant case, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the petitioner has not followed the statutory mandatory requirement as contemplated, under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, by giving one month notice to the second respondent and by paying one month salary, before terminating his service. But, even, without issuing notice and hearing the second respondent, the petitioner has passed the termination order, dated 28.03.2009 terminating the service of the second respondent. The first respondent has rightly quashed the impugned termination order, dated 28.03.2009, passed by the petitioner, as it has violated the Provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs.