1. Workman is calling in question notice dated 09.03.2012 Annexure –H issued by the fourth respondent intimating the petitioner that his services would be retrenched with effect from 08.04.2012.

2. Heard Sri S B Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M R C Ravi for respondents No 2 to 4 and Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No 1 to 3. Perused the impugned notice.

3. Facts in brief leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:

Petitioner was engaged as stenographer on daily wage basis by fourth respondent in the year 1992 and on account his alleged termination in July 1993 a dispute came to be raised by the petitioner and on a reference being made by the appropriate Government. Reference came to be answered in favour of the petitioner by the Labour Court, Mangalore, in reference No. 52/1998 with a direction to fourth respondent herein to reinstate petitioner into service with continuity of service but without backwages. Fourth respondent-establishment after dragging its feet for a period of 7 years is said to have reinstated petitioner-workman on 03.08.2009 as per Annexure-D. Thereafter petitioner has continued to discharge his services in the fourth respondent establishment. However on 09.03.2012 a notice came to be issued which is at Annexure-A intimating the petitioner that his services would be retrenched with effect from 08.04.2012 as per Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to be effective from said date i.e. 08.04.2012. Aggrieved by the said notice petitioner approached this Court in the above writ petition filed on 19.03.2012 and matter came to be listed before this Court on 27.03.2012, 03.04.2012, 09.04.2012, 10.04.2012, 12.04.2012 and today. During the pendency of the writ petition petitioner’s counsel expressed apprehension of petitioner being retrenched as per the notice dated 09.03.2012 Annexure-H and to allay such fears learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that no precipitative action will be taken till an order is passed by this Court in the pending writ petition. Though it was not specifically recorded in the order sheet as such this fact is not in dispute as agreed to by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this factual background petitioner is said to have been continued without giving effect to the impugned notice dated 08.04.2012 and these facts are not in dispute.

4. It is the contention of Sri S B Mukkannapa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that impugned notice is a notice of retrenchment and there has been violation of Clause (b) of Section 25-F namely retrenchment compensation is not paid along with notice and on this ground alone notice is liable to be quashed as it is violative of Section 25-F. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that even in the event of such notice does not accompany the actual amount of retrenchment compensation payable to the petitioner and if paid thereafter even in such circumstances notice of retrenchment would be violative of Section 25F and contends in the instant case that no such amount has been despatched/forwarded/paid to the petitioner and as such impugned notice is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission he relies upon the following judgments

1. AIR 1960 SC 610: The State of Bombay and others vs. The Hospital Madoor Sabha and others.

2. AIR 1973 Lab I.C. 172: Kalicharan vs. The Workshop Eleectrical Engineer and others.

3. 1997 (2) LLJ 519: Mani Ram vs. The presiding Officer.

5. Per contra Sri Ramachandran learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 would contend thaT impugned notice in question is not a notice terminating the petitioner by retrenchment but it is only a notice of intimation to the petitioner that he would be retrenched from the effective date as mentioned therein i.e, 08.04.2012 and as such respondents No. 2 to 4 wo