JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated May 18, 1998 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
2. The respondent No. 2, Narain Ram, who was employed as Chowkidar with the appellant on August 1, 1985 was discharged from service w.e.f. October 2, 1986 by notice dated September 3, 1986.
3. The said termination of respondent-workman from services was made subject-matter of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act where Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated April 27, 1993 found that the notice served on the respondent was not for a period of one complete month before his termination was made effective and it was also found that at the time of retrenchment neither the amount of retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman nor he denied to accept if it would have been offered to him. Thus, finding that the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same was held to be invalid and the award was made for reinstating the workman with continuity of service.
4. The award was challenged vide Writ Petition No. 4524/1994. The learned single Judge noticed that the only contention made by the State was that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in passing the award in favour of the respondent-workman on the ground that the notice fell short by one day. The learned single Judge had declined to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction with the order passed by the Labour Court vide judgment under appeal with reference to Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mastaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 : 1983 (4) SCC 566.
5. We are of the opinion that if on the merit of the order, there is to be found an error apparent on the face of record, there cannot be any impediment in correcting the error by issuing writ of certiorari and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above cannot be used as strait-jacket formula by refusing to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the grounds for such interference are shown to exist.
6. However, on the merit of the case, we find that not only on the ground of short notice but also for non-compliance of Clause (b) of Section 25F which is equally mandatory to sustain any retrenchment, the appellant cannot get any relief.
7. Clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires that the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess or 6 months.
8. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence placed before it had categorically found that the workman has not even been offered the retrenchment compensation payable under Clause (b) of Section 25F at or before the time of retrenchment. Therefore, even without entering the controversy of sufficiency of notice, retrenchment on facts found by the Tribunal is not sustainable and there is no error apparent on the basis of which the finding of fact about non-offering of retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment stand vitiated so as not to bind this Court.
9. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. We are informed that in pursuance of award the respondent-workman has been reinstated. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it just and proper to restrict the award of back wages with effect from the date of order of making reference to the Tribunal. Subject to aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed.