JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—The appellant employer, undaunted by a double defeat at both tiers in the High Court, has appealed against the adverse judgments, by certificate, on the only ground that there was no retrenchment of the respondent-employee within the meaning of S.2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) and, consequently, the latter was ineligible to the statutory compensation the non-payment of which, along with the termination of service, nullified the termination itself. The end result was that the Division Bench of the Court ruled that the respondent was entitled to retrenchment compensation which, not having been paid, the termination would be invalid . The subtle legal issue, substantial in its financial impact, is whether Sec. 25F read with Section 2 (oo), vis a vis a short employment casts a lethal spell on the cessation of service for non-compliance with the condition precedent set out in the provision.

The Certificate.

2. The certificate issued by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) is bad on its face, according to counsel for the respondent and the appeal consequently incompetent. We are inclined to agree that the