JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. At the time of argument no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 employer M/s Meena Steel Limited Kanpur hence only the argument of learned Counsel for the workman petitioner was heard.
2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 14.7.1986 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court (V) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 101 of 1984. The Labour Court decided the matter against the petitioner holding that his services had rightly been terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as U.P. I.D Act).
3. Services were terminated on 9.7.1983. Labour Court found that the order of termination dated 9.7.1983 was received on the same date by the petitioner in between 7.00 P.M to 7.30 P.M. The copy of the termination order was filed before the Labour Court.
4. According to the Labour Court in the said termination order, it was mentioned that the petitioner workman could collect from the head office of the employer on 11.7.1983 i.e. Mondav, the amount consisting of one month's wages in lieu of notice, unpaid wages till 9.7.1983 and wages in lieu of leave till 9.7.1983 and retrenchment relief at the rate of 15 days wages for every year of service. Labour Court also found as correct the version of the employer that the petitioner workman did not reach the head office of the employer on 11.7.1983 to collect the aforesaid amount or in any case even if he reached the head office, he refused to accept the amount. It appears that on 13.7.1983 also another letter was sent by the employer to the workman petitioner stating therein that since 11.7.1983 his amount was available in the head office of the employer but he did not come to receive the same and he was again directed to receive the amount on 14.7.1983.
5. The amount required to be paid under Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act shall be paid along with termination. The payment of the said amount is condition precedent for the termination. If along with termination the said amount is not paid then termination is illegal and subsequent payment does not make the termination legal. In this regard even one day's delay is fatal.
6. Accordingly, the view of the Labour Court that offer of payment on next working day was sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. I.D Act is illegal.
7. The impugned award therefore has to be set-aside.
8. However, it is not necessary to direct reinstatement even if there is some technical error in the termination order. In such situation the proper course is to award consolidated compensation / damages as held by the Supreme Court in Nagar Maha Palika v. State of U.P and Ors. and Haryana SEDC v. Mamni. In the first case of Nagar Maha Palika retrenchment was found to be illegal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 6-N. In the said case Labour Court had awarded reinstatement with full back wages however the Supreme Court set-aside the said order and awarded damages of Rs. 30000/. In the second case termination of service for one or two days after 89 days on three or four occasions was found to be not bonafide and adopted to defeat the object of the Act. It was also found that it was necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act (equivalent to Section 6-N of U.P I.D Act) at the time of termination which was not done still the Supreme Court instead of reinstatement awarded damages of Rs. 25000/-. In the said case also Labour Court had directed reinstatement with full back wages and High Court had dismissed the writ petition directed against the said award.
9. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set-aside. It is held that termination of service of petitioner by respondent No. 2 was illegal for want of compliance of Section 6-N of U.P.I.D Act. However, instead of reinstatement with full back wages, it is directed that employer respondent No. 2 shall pay Rs. 25000/- as consolidated compensation/ damages to the petitioner workman.