JUDGMENT 1. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, these petitioners pray for quashing Annexure 2. By Annexure 2, the services of these petitioners have been retrenched by the respondents. 2. Earlier, the respondents had issued a retrenchment notice dated 31.8.1976 against these petitioners. These petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No. 2160 of 1976 before this High Court. The writ application was withdrawn on 26.10.1976 as the petitioners were reinstated in service by the Railway authorities. Thereafter, again these petitioners were retrenched by notice dated 31.1.1977 with effect from 28.2.1977, vide Annexure 2. 3. The validity of the order of retrenchment of the petitioners as contained in Annexure 2 is being challenged for non–compliance with the provisions of Rule 76 of the Industrial Disputes (Control) Rules 1957. It is relevant to quote rule 76 (a) of the aforesaid Rules which runs as follows:– "76 Notice of retrenchment–if any employer desires to retrench any workman employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as 'workman' in this rule and in Rules 77 and 78), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned, by registered post in the following manner:– (a) Where notice is given to the workman notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman. (b)............. (c)............." In a case in which prior notice is given to the workman, as in the present case, it is mandatory on the Railway authorities to given notice of retrenchment to the authorities mentioned in Rule 76 within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman. 4. It is an admitted position that no such notice as required under Rule 76 (a) was given to the various authorities as mentioned in Rule 76. Learned counsel for we respondents contends that the provision is not mandatory and it not at all necessary to send notice of retrenchment of the workman to the authorities mentioned in Rule 76. 4. It is an admitted position that no such notice as required under Rule 76 (a) was given to the various authorities as mentioned in Rule 76. Learned counsel for we respondents contends that the provision is not mandatory and it not at all necessary to send notice of retrenchment of the workman to the authorities mentioned in Rule 76. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the opinion that 76 (a) is a mandatory provision. Notice of retrenchment in accordance with Rule 76 (a) is required to be sent in Form P. The notice in Form P. retrenchment of a workman by an employer is given under clause (c) of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We, therefore, quash Annexure 2 for non compliance of the provision of Rule 76 (a) which, in our opinion, is mandatory. 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Annexure 1. Annexure 1 provided that where a casual labour, "whether employed on projects or otherwise, has completed four months continuous service, his name should be forwarded to be considered for empanelment by the Screening Committee for absorption against regular class IV posts. In this connection it has been stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the concerned departments have been written for consideration of empanelment of the petitioners by the Screening Committee for their absorption against regular class IV posts. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, it has been stated in paragraph 4 that though more than three years has expired still the petitioners have not been empanelled or absorbed by the respondents, although several hundred persons have been employed in three years in the Railway Administration in Danapur Division. 6. In view of the fact that we have already quashed Annexure 2, we direct that the petitioners should be reinstated in the Railways service and they shall continue as casual labourers till they are permanently absorbed by the Railway authorities as required in Annexure 1. We also direct that these petitioners should not be retrenched on those very grounds. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and Annexure 2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to follow the directions given above. Application allowed.