The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in cases of retrenchment, and the entitlement to reinstatement and back wages based on the circumstances of the case.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. The writ application has been filed for quashing the award dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 17 of 2004/4(C) of 2004 by which the retrenchment of respondent no. 2 was held to be bad, illegal, inoperative and void ab initio and it was directed to reinstate him with full back wages and also to make payment of the unpaid salary for the month of December, 1996.

3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the respondent no. 2 was engaged as a casual labourer in Technical Service Centre (TSC), Purnea under the National Sericulture Project (NSP) of the Central Silk Board on 16.5.1991. He continued as a daily wager for five years and thereafter by an office memorandum dated 9/10.9.1996 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director (PAl), National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Kishanganj, Bihar he was converted as a Time Scale Labourer w.e.f. 16.5.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 500-10-700 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. By the said memorandum he became entitled to dearness allowance at the rate sanctioned to the Central Government employees from time to time, annual increment, medical allowance, house rent allowance, gratuity at the rate of one months pay for each completed year of service subject to maximum 15 months pay and his age of superannuation was stated to be 55 years. He was also held to be entitled to other benefits such as leave, festival advance, etc. Thereafter by the office order dated 31.12.1996 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director (PAI) it was stated that as directed by the competent authority of Central Silk Board, Bangalore it is hereby informed that in view of closure of CSB Unit of Project Area, N.S.P., Kishanganj (Bihar) the services of Time Scale Labourers/Casual Labourers of units mentioned in the said order including that of the respondent no. 2 were no longer required w.e.f. 31.12.1996 (A/N). It was further stated that the said labourers would be paid terminal benefit in lieu of notice as per clause (a) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The admitted fact is that while the other labourers received the office order the same could not be served upon the respondent no. 2. Ultimately the said termination order was sent to him by registered post alongwith the office memorandum dated 25.1.1997 alongwith copy of letter dated 11.1.1997 in which it was stated that he should receive the arrear of wage for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.11.1996, wage for the month of December, 1996 and one months wage/pay in lieu of one months notice for termination from the Assistant Director, P2 Basic Seed Farm, Purnea.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the petitioners the respondent no. 2 raised an industrial dispute but initially the reference was refused. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court and on the basis of the order passed by the High Court the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by order dated 15.1.2004 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made the following reference before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Silk Board in terminating the services of Sh. Nawal Kumar Gupta as Class-IV employee is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

5. After hearing the parties the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna passed the aforesaid award, aggrieved by which the petitioners have come to this Court.

6. The respondent no. 2 has also filed an interlocutory application, I.A. No. 2254 of 2007 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying that in view of the status quo order passed by this Court on 8.9.2006, to direct the petitioners to pay the respondent the last wage drawn during the pendency of the writ application. In view of Section 17B of the Indu