N RANGASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Workman is calling in question notice dated 09.03.2012 Annexure-H issued by the fourth respondent intimating the petitioner that his services would be retrenched with effect from 08.04.2012. Heard Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.R.C. Ravi, for respondents No. 2 to 4 and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. Perused the impugned notice.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:

(3.) It is the contention of Sri. S.B. Mukkannapa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that impugned notice is a notice of retrenchment and there has been violation of Clause (b) of Section 25-F namely retrenchment compensation is not paid along with notice and on this ground alone notice is liable to be quashed as it is violative of Section 25-F. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that even in the event of such notice does not accompany the actual amount of retrenchment compensation payable to the petitioner and if paid thereafter even in such circumstances notice of retrenchment would be violative of Section 25F and contends in the instant case that no such amount has been despatched / forwarded / paid to the petitioner and as such impugned notice is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission he relies upon the following judgments: