Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

This order will dispose of CWP No. 2816 of 2013 and CWP 2818 of 2013 as similar facts and law points are involved in both these cases. For convenience, the facts are culled out from CWP No. 2816 of 2013. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 18.4.2011 (P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, in reference No. 238 of 2002 has been called in question.

2. The order of termination dated 10.2.2001 has been held bad on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) inasmuch as the workman was not put to notice of termination, nor retrenchment compensation was paid and one month's pay in lieu of notice remained unpaid. There is also no dispute that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination.

3. The further necessary facts for adjudication of this matter as pleaded by the workman are that he was appointed on 14.7.1999 by the petitioner-management in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 and he worked upto 10.2.2001. The case of the petitioner-management is that