NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. This writ application has been filed for quashing an order passed by the respondent-Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service of the North Eastern Railway with effect from 11-11-1976. According to the petitioner, the said order is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. A copy of that order is Annexure-1 to the writ application.

2. The order retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the service of the Railway is purported to have been passed in exercise of the power conferred on the authority concerned by clause (h) of rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Rule 2046, which is the same as Fundamental Rule 56, vests power in authorities concerned, to retires officers of different categories, on certain conditions being fulfilled. We are concerned only with clause (h) of the same, which is as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any railway servant giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice (i) If he is in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty- five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years.

(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years".

From a bare reference to this provision it will appear that before retiring an employee of the railway, the appointing authority must be satisfied that it was in public interest to do so. Having been satisfied about the same, a notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice is to be given. Sub-clause (ii), which is applicable in the case of the petitioner, prescribes that age of the person concerned at the relevant time must be 55 years. There is no dispute that the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid provision were fulfilled, when the impugned order was issued.

3. The main point, which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel, is that the petitioner being a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), his services cannot be terminated unless the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is also followed, as he is governed by the provisions of the Code as well as the provisions of the Act. Section 25F of the Act is 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 the employer until (a) the workman has been given one months 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. Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service:

(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."

Learned counsel admitted that so far as the requirement of clause (a) of Section 25F is concerned, it had been fulfilled in the instant case by service of the notice in advance, but according to him there has been infraction of the requirement of clause (b) inasmuch as the petitioner was not paid at the time, when he was compulsorily retired, compensation, which should have been "equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of co