Balasybranmanyan, J.

These two writ appeals raise questions of some importance in the application of the law relating to retrenchment of an employee from service.

2. The appellant is a limited company having an office at Madras. The respondent Sankaran was an employee in that office for more than ten years. In 1970, the company discharged Sankaran from service avowedly as measure retrenchment. At that time he was one out of four assistants in the office, but not the juniormost. When serving the notice of retrenchment to management gave him one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But the amount was given by cheque.

3. Sankaran raised an industrial dispute over his retrenchment. On reference before the Labour Court he pleaded that there was no warrant whatever for the management to introduce any measure of retrenchment at the material time. The Labour Court rejected this plea on the score that the company had incurred losses in its business in 1969 and there was nothing wrong in its desire to effect economies. Sankaran raised two other contentions based on S.25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He urged that the payment of his dues by cheque, instead of in cash, was not in accordance with S. 25F. Characterizing this plea as a technicality the Labour Court rejected it, observing that the mere fact that the cheque could be encashed only on the next day would not render retrenchment invalid. The Labour Court however, accepted Sankaran's plea based on S.25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It found that in the notice which the management lodged with the State Government, it had given some reason as to why it picked out Sankaran for retrenchment while retaining in the office persons subsequently employed in the category of assistance. But after examining these reasons, the Labour Court held that they did not afford good grounds under the law for deviating from the principle, "Last come, first go". On the basis of this last finding the Labour Court held that Sankaran's retrenchment from service was invalid. Having recorded this finding the Court, however, did not think that the circumstances of the case warranted the relief by way of reinstatement. On the contrary, having regard to the management's loss of confidence in Sankaran and the strained relationship between the parties and in the interest of industrial peace and smooth working of the office, the Labour Court, in the exercise of its discretion, directed the company to pay Sankaran an additional sum by way of compensation for non-employment over and above that which had been already received by him.

4. The award of the Labour Court on the lines aforesaid, satisfied neither party to the full. In effort to achieve their respective positions, each filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 2836 of 1972, the company asked for quashing the award in its entirety, contending that the order of retrenchment ought to have been upheld. Sankaran in his writ petition, W.P. No. 1487 of 1972, asked for a direction to modify the Labour Court's award and direct his reinstatement in service.

5. The writ petitions came before Mohan, J., for hearing. The learned Judge agreed with all the factual findings of the Labour Court. But he differed from the view expressed by the Labour Court to the effect that the cheque payment in this case did not violate the terms of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In doing so, he took note of the fact that at the time the company handed over its cheque to Sankaran along with the order of retrenchment, the bank had closed its hours of business for the day. The learned Judge rejected the management's contention based on the circumstances that Sankaran accepted the cheque and did not protest against it as mode of payment. Replying on certain observations of Venkatadri, J., in Andhra Laundry v. Additional Labour Court, the learned Judge held that it was not open to the employer and employee to contract themselves out of the requirements of