JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Notified Area Council Bhubaneswar (hereafter referred to as the "Council") maintained a conservancy department for which provision has been made in Chapter XV of the Orissa Municipal Act of 1950 (hereafter referred to as the "Act"), In August, 1972, as a part of the programme for celebrating the silver jubilee of Indian Independence, the Urban Development Department of the State Government called upon the Local Bodies to prepare schemes for conversion of the service latrines into sanitary ones with a view to doing away the pernicious practice of removing night soils by sweepers. On 10-8-1972, the Silver Jubilee Celebration Committee of the Council resolved that all service latrines within the local limits of the Council be converted into septic latrines and cleaning of night soil by head or hand be stopped. On the following day, the Council decided to stop the practice of cleaning night soil by hand. On 19-9-1972, the practice of cleaning night soil by sweepers was decided to be abandoned with effect from 1st January, 1973, and latrine tax was also decided to be withdrawn. Consequently, notice under Annexure-1 to the following effect was given: In pursuance of. Council resolution No. 1 (a) and (b) dated 2-12-1972 read with the provisions contained under Rule 420 of the Grissa Municipal Rules, 1953, the service of Smt. Bimala Bewa, Sweepress 4.5 of Bhubaneswar N.A.C. are no longer required by the said N.A.C. with effect from 5-3-1973 (A.N.) consequent on the abolition of post. This may also be treated as 3 months notice under Rule 421 of the said Rules. Similar notice was given to 288 sweepers and sweepresses in the employment of the Council. This writ application was filed on 2nd March, 1973, challenging the notice as ultra vires the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and as not otherwise tenable in law. Objection was taken in this Court to the maintainability of a joint writ petition at the instance of 290 Petitioners, i.e. 288 (employees ana their 2 Unions. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner thereupon opted to press the application of Bimala Bewa Petitioner No. 176. The Court passed the following order on 2nd March, 1973: With regard to the defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, Mr. Misra confines this writ application to Petitioner No. 176 (Bimala Bewa) only. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner thereupon opted to press the application of Bimala Bewa Petitioner No. 176. The Court passed the following order on 2nd March, 1973: With regard to the defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, Mr. Misra confines this writ application to Petitioner No. 176 (Bimala Bewa) only. As regards other Petitioners it will be presumed that no writ applications have been filed by them. Mr. Misra may file separate writ applications for each of them if he is so advised. This application, therefore, has proceeded on the footing that Bimala Bewa is the sale Petitioner. Annexure-A produced on behalf of the Council goes to show that the Petitioner has again been appointed with effect from 7th of March. 1973, i.e, with a gap of 2 days. The Petitioner was a temporary hand at the time notice under Annexure-1 was issued. Under Annexure-A, she has also been appointed again on temporary basis. 2. In the counter affidavit, the Executive Officer of the Council-opposite party No. 3 has recounted the circumstances under which the decision was taken by the Council to abolish the posts and terminated the services of the sweepers and sweepresses. In paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the counter affidavit, the action has been referred to as retrenchment a contention which the Petitioner makes. 3. According to Mr. Misra for the Petitioner, the conservancy department of the Council as on "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947; the notice under Annexure-1 is a notice of retrenchment as defined u/s 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act; admittedly there has been no compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the said Act and the termination of service under Annexure-1. therefore is contrary to law and has to be quashed. 4. A public utility service or undertaking run by a Municipal Council has been found to constitute on industry even though it is carried with the aid of taxation in the case of Sirur Municipality, (Ghodnadi) District Poona Vs. The Workmen, Sirur Municipality by Poona Mazdoor Sabha and Another the conservancy service rendered by the Municipality is held to be on industry. The Workmen, Sirur Municipality by Poona Mazdoor Sabha and Another the conservancy service rendered by the Municipality is held to be on industry. The tests that have been applied on several occasions by the Supreme Court to find out whether a given activity is industry, if applied to the case before us would clearly show that the conservancy department is on industry. The notice under Annexure-1 was purported to be under Rule 421 of the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called as the "Rules") which provides: Notice of at least three months shall be given to on officer or servant in permanent employ before he is discharged.... Rule 420 of the Rules deals with abolition of posts. Mr. Mohanty for the Council does not dispute the position that if the situation would be covered by. the definition of "retrenchment" merely because there is provision in Rule 421 to give notice, it would not cease to be a case of retrenchment. "Retrenchment" has been defined u/s 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act to mean- ...the termination by the employer of the service of a workmen for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of the employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. Admittedly, it is not a case covered by the three exceptions indicated above. Therefore, it would be a case of retrenchment. 5. Admittedly, it is not a case covered by the three exceptions indicated above. Therefore, it would be a case of retrenchment. 5. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act provides: No workman employed in on industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under on employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in wining indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under on agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to 'fifteen days' average ray for every 'completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may, be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. The Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Subong Tea Estate Vs. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and Another held that non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act renders the retrenchment invalid. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Dhruba Singh v. Union of India and Anr. XXXV (1969) C.L.T. 985, Since the requirement prescribed u/s 25-F(b) is a condition precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and non-compliance of the said provision renders the impugned retrenchment invalid and inoperative as held by the Supreme Court in the case of S The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others as also by this Court in the case of Beni Bhuj Sahu Vs. Chief Engineer, Hirakud Dam Project and Another the retrenchment brought about under Annexure-1 must be held to be contrary to law. 6. As already indicated, the retrenchment became effective with effect from 5th March, 1973. Re-employment was given with effect from 7th March, 1973. In this process there has been a short break of service by two days. Chief Engineer, Hirakud Dam Project and Another the retrenchment brought about under Annexure-1 must be held to be contrary to law. 6. As already indicated, the retrenchment became effective with effect from 5th March, 1973. Re-employment was given with effect from 7th March, 1973. In this process there has been a short break of service by two days. As in our view the notice under Annexure-1 is contrary to law and does not affect the service of the Petitioner, she must be held to be continuing in service not affected by the notice of retrenchment. Mr. Mohanty for the Council seriously contended that the Petitioner should be called upon to avail the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and we may not exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Our jurisdiction to interfere is not disputed. What is suggested by Mr. Mohanty is that there is on alternate statutory remedy and, therefore, we should not interfere. There is no dispute of fact before us. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to drive the Petitioner for a fresh litigation. 7. We accordingly quash the notice and require the Notified Area Council authorities to treat the Petitioner to be continuing in service unaffected by the notice under Annexure-1. We make no order as to costs. K.B. Panda J. 8. I agree.