JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition which is connected with Writ Nos. 4285 and 4287 of 1982, raises common questions. Thus, they can be taken up together. 2. For the purposes of deciding the aforesaid three writ petitions, reference to the facts of Writ No. 4290 of 1982 is only necessary to be made. The petitioners of this case were appointed on different dates as casual labourers in the North Eastern Railway, in different capacities, namely, as Khalasis, Blacksmiths etc. They were appointed between October 22, 1980 and 31st March, 1981. As casual labourers, they were given Service Cards and muster roll in which their attendance used to be noted, was also prepared. Services of 102 casual labourers were terminated with effect from 15th April, 1982, afternoon by separate orders on the ground that as the work for which the petitioners had been appointed had since finished, the petitioners' services were not required. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging their retrenchment on the following grounds : - (i) that the petitioners had since not been employed or recruited in any Project, they became temporary employees and were, thus, not liable to be terminated/ retrenched without following the procedure prescribed in the Railway Establishment Manual. (ii) that the provisions of S. 25-F were mandatory and non-compliance of the same renders the retrenchment as a nullity and, therefore, the petitioners were liable to be treated as still in service. (iii) that the notices of retrenchment published at the permanent Way Inspector offering one month's salary in lieu of notices and retrenchment compensation on the same day did not amount to any offer in the eye of law. The retrenchment order, therefore, was violative under S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. (iv) that no seniority list had been prepared in accordance with R. 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. (v) that under R. 2 (g) (ii) (c), the Executive Engineer was not a person authorised to retrench the services of the petitioners being not a District Officer In charge of the Petitioners. 3. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and a counter affidavit has been filed by G. S. Kaushik, the Executive Engineer Construction (West) North-Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and the allegations made in the writ petition had been denied. 3. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and a counter affidavit has been filed by G. S. Kaushik, the Executive Engineer Construction (West) North-Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and the allegations made in the writ petition had been denied. The case of the contesting respondents is that the petitioners had been employed in the `Project' undertaken by the North Eastern Railway Administration to convert Metre Gauge Track to Broad Gauge Track from Samastipur to Barabanki. The services of the petitioners had been terminated by separate orders as the work of the Project for which the petitioners had been employed was finished. The contesting respondents have alleged that the services of the petitioners have been terminated by the Executive Engineer In charge - the District Officer within the meaning of R. 2 (g) (ii) (c) of the Rules and that after having complied with the requirement of S. 25-F of the Act. The petitioners, according to the respondents, were locally recruited by the Executive Engineer/Con/West for specific purpose of conversion of Metre Gauge Track to Broad Gauge Track within his jurisdiction. The petitioners were directed by the Permanent Way Inspector Construction (West) Gorakhpur under whose sub-unit the petitioners were working, to report at the office on 15th April, 1982 and on the 15th April, 1982, all the petitioners attended the office of P.W. 1, Gorakhpur and their attendance was recorded and impugned notices terminating their services were attempted to be served on them along with their wages and retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of the notices. Out of 383 casual labourers working under Permanent Way Inspector (West), 242 accepted their dues and notices and 141 casual labourers who were present, refused to accept the notices and their dues. On these pleadings, the respondents asserted that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief and, as such, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. Before taking up the arguments, we wish to note that there was no dispute between the parties that S. 25-F lays down conditions precedent to retrenchment of the Workmen and that these conditions were required to be fulfilled for valid termination. 4. Before taking up the arguments, we wish to note that there was no dispute between the parties that S. 25-F lays down conditions precedent to retrenchment of the Workmen and that these conditions were required to be fulfilled for valid termination. S. 25-F prostulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for effecting a valid retrenchment, namely, (a) one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice; (b) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part in excess thereof; (c) notice to appropriate Government in the prescribed manner. 5. Considering S. 25-F, the Supreme Court has held in State of Bombay v. Hospital. Mazdoor Sabha, ( (1960) 17 FJR 423 ) : ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ), that S. 25-F (b) is mandatory and that the requirements prescribed by it are the conditions precedent for retrenchment of the workmen. Non-compliance with the said conditions would render the retrenchment invalid and inoperative. 6. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, ( AIR 1964 SC 1617 ) and in State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, ( AIR 1976 SC 1111 ) : (1976 Lab I C 769) (Para 8). In this case, the Supreme Court held that : "Without further ado, we reach the conclusion that if the workman swims into the harbour of S. 25-F, he cannot be retrenched without payment, at the time of retrenchment, compensation computed as prescribed therein............ 7. The first argument raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the petitioners were recruited on a construction work which was not a work charged Project, they became temporary employees after expiry of six months of their employment. In that connection, counsel submitted that it was immaterial that the petitioners had been initially recruited as casual labourers, he emphasised that the services of the petitioners were transferable and this was a ground to treat them as workers not employed on project. 8. R. 2501 defines casual labour. The relevant portion of the said Rule is quoted below : "(a) Casual labour refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short periods. Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source. 8. R. 2501 defines casual labour. The relevant portion of the said Rule is quoted below : "(a) Casual labour refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short periods. Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source. It is not liable to transfer, and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour. (b) The casual labour on railways should be employed only in the following types of cases, namely : (I) Staff paid from contingencies except those retained for more than six months continuously - Such of those persons who continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work of the same type for more than six months without a break will be treated as temporary after the expiry of the six months of continuous employment. (ii) Labour on projects, irrespective of duration, except those transferred from other temporary or permanent 'employment" 9. R. 2301 in Chapter XXIII defines Railway servant. It reads as under : "2301. Definition - A "temporary railway servant" means a railway servant without a lien on a permanent post on a Railway or any other administration or office under the Railway Board. The term does not include 'casual labour', a 'contract' or 'part-time' employee or an 'apprentice'." 10. The services of a temporary Railway servant may be terminated in accordance with R. 2301. The main controversy raised in the present case before us was that the petitioners were employed on a Project as casual labourers and, as such, they were not entitled to be temporary employees. Not much of debate was made before us that in case the petitioners were casual labourers working on a project, they could not become temporary employees after six months. For the purpose of proving that the petitioners were recruited on a project for conversion of Metre Gauge Track to Broad Guage Track, reference may be made to Annexures I. II and III of the writ petition. From Annexure I, it is established that in a meeting held on August 2, 1976, it was decided that the conversion of SPJ - BBK section into B. G. was to be treated as a construction project. Annexure II is a memorandum dated 29th December, 1979. From Annexure I, it is established that in a meeting held on August 2, 1976, it was decided that the conversion of SPJ - BBK section into B. G. was to be treated as a construction project. Annexure II is a memorandum dated 29th December, 1979. The said memorandum reads as under: - "The Chief Engineer (Constn.) in consultation with the F. A. & C. O. N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur has declared that all works including survey, which are executed by B. G. Construction Organisation, will be considered as 'project' in terms of Para 2501 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual." 11. In continuation to the aforesaid two Annexrues, reference may also be made to Annexure III which is another memorandum. This is being quoted below : "In continuation to this office memorandum No. W/Con/98/O/W. I dated 9-1-80 all works including survey, which are being executed by B. G. Construction Organisation have been treated as' Projects' in terms of Para 2501 of the Indian Rly. Establishment Manual from the date from which Construction and Survey Organisation has started functioning i.e. June 1972." 12. From the above three Annexures, it is conclusively establishment that the work of conversion from Metre Gauge Track to Broad Guage Track between Samastipur and Barabanki on which the petitioners were employed was a Project and because of being a Project, the petitioners could not become temporary employees. R. 2501 (b) (i) and (ii) would show that such of those workers belonging to the category of causal labourers who continued to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work of the same type for more than six months without a break, will be treated as temporary after six months of the continuous employment. However, such a casual labourer should be employed for construction work other than work charged Project. If there is any work charged Project started, he will not be able to acquire status of a temporary railway servant. 13. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer Southern Railway ( AIR 1982 SC 854 ) :(1982 Lab I C 811) and urged that irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were employed on a Project, the petitioners became temporary employees. We are unable to accept this argument. 13. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer Southern Railway ( AIR 1982 SC 854 ) :(1982 Lab I C 811) and urged that irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were employed on a Project, the petitioners became temporary employees. We are unable to accept this argument. In the aforesaid case, the finding given by the Supreme Court was that the appellant of that case had not been employed on a Project. He was not only transferred from one place to another, but also that he had been continuously working for the last 20 years. Having rendered continuous uninterrupted service on a construction work which was not a Project, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had acquired the status of a temporary railway servant. The Supreme Court in this case held that a Project is co-related to planned projects in which the workman is treated as work charged. 14. This decision in fact goes against the petitioner's contention. The Supreme Court since did not accept the averments of the Railway Administration that the appellant was working on Project, it found that the termination of services for breach of R. 2301 of the Railway Establishment Manual, was invalid. Had the Supreme Court found that the appellant of that case was employed on a Project, the decision would have been different. 15. We have pointed out above, the definition of the words 'casual labour' has been given in para 2501. The note appended to the said para defines as to what a project is. The same is quoted below : "The project should be taken as construction of new lines, major bridges, restoration of dismantled lines and other major important open line works like doubling, widening of tunnels etc. which are completed within a definite time limit. The General Manager/ Heads of Departments concerned, in consultation with the F. A & CA 0, will decide whether a particular open line work is a "Project" or not. If the "through Track Renewals" include the replacement of lighter Section of Rails by a heavier Section or increasing density of sleepers or provision of additional depth of ballast etc., these should be treated as works leading to an improvement in the carrying capacity of the Railway and as such irrespective of any financial limit they should be treated as 'Project'. 'Casual renewals' or other "Through Renewal" which do not lead to any improvement in the carrying capacity of a Railway will, however, not fall within the definition of a 'Project'." 16. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the writ petition and submitted that as some of the petitioners had been given passes /and were also given Travelling Allowances, their status could not be other than that of temporary employees. In that - connection, submission made also was that the petitioners had been transferred from one place to another. It is no doubt true that a casual labour is not liable to transfer, and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour. The fact, however, appears to be that the case of the petitioners about transfer is not found established. The petitioners were although given Travelling Allowances but that they got as casual labour employed on project. Payment of travelling allowance and entering of their names in the muster roll are not the circumstances indicative of the fact that they were other than those working as casual labourers on the Project. The petitioners' employment was for a specific work and not a work of general nature. Their services had been brought to an end by means of notices served upon them under S. 25-F. In para 14 of the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the work of the unit where the petitioners were employed had almost come to an end and winding up process was in progress. As a result of work coming to an end, the casual labourers had been rendered as surplus. 17. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Executive Engineer Construction (West) Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to retrench the petitioners by the impugned notices. According to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer Construction was not the employer of the petitioners within the meaning of S. 25-F of the Act. 17. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Executive Engineer Construction (West) Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to retrench the petitioners by the impugned notices. According to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer Construction was not the employer of the petitioners within the meaning of S. 25-F of the Act. S. 2 (g) (i) of the Act defines an employer as under : "in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the "Central Government or the State Government", the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department." R. 2 (g) (ii) (c) lays down that "the District Officer in charge or the Divisional Personnel Officer or the personnel officer shall he the 'employer' in respect of casual labour employed on a Zonal Railway. 18. The submission made by Sri Raja Ram Agrawal was that as according to the petitioners, their employment was on a Project, the Chief Engineer who was the in-charge of the project could alone be considered to be the employer and as in the instant case, the notices of termination had not been given by the Chief Engineer, the termination was invalid. 19. From paras 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit filed in the connected Writ Petition No. 4285 of 1982, and that filed in this case, it appears that the petitioners were appointed by one unit of Executive Engineer Construction (West) Gorakhpur under Samastipur - Barabanki project. No doubt the work of conversion project for the North Eastern Railway was under the Chief Engineer (Cons[.) N. R. Railway Gorakhpur but the appointments of the petitioners were under the Divisional Officer Executive Engineer Construction (West) Gorakhpur. Their employer, therefore, was the Executive Engineer who also was the District Officer incharge. In para 42 of the counter-affidavit of Writ Petition No. 4385 of 82, the averments made in this respect are "that the allegations contained in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the petition are denied. Respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer is District Officer in charge and is fully competent to terminate the services of the petitioners. He is officer in charge in the Construction division i.e. the respondent No. 4." 20. Respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer is District Officer in charge and is fully competent to terminate the services of the petitioners. He is officer in charge in the Construction division i.e. the respondent No. 4." 20. From the above, it is established that, the Executive Engineer is the District Officer In charge and, as such, was fully empowered under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rules made thereunder to retrench the petitioners. In Civil Writ Jurn. Case 4568 of 1981 Dhirendra Kumar Vidyarthi V. Union of India, decided on 9th April, 1982 (reported in 1982 Lab I C 1680), the Patna High Court was confronted with a similar argument. The Patna High Court found that the Executive Engineer (Const.) Chhapra was the District Officer and, as such, he would be deemed to be the employer of the petitioners of that case. In our case as well, the evidence brought on record is that under the Chief Engineer Construction, the project was divided into separate units under the charge of the District Officer, namely, Executive Engineer (Construction). These petitioners were appointed by one unit of the Executive Engineers under Samastipur - Barabanki project for carrying on construction work for the unit of that Executive Engineer. They were locally recruited by the Executive Engineer Construction (West) for the purpose of conversion of Metre Gauge Track to Broad Gauge Track within the jurisdiction of his unit. The contention of the petitioners that they were appointed under the order of CE/Con/N.E. Railway/GKP is not correct. In view of the above, we find that the argument of the petitioners' learned counsel that the Executive Engineer was not the District Officer in charge and hence, service had not been terminated is unfounded. Some argument was attempted to be raised on the basis of paragraph 47 of the counter affidavit of the present writ. In that para 47, the averment was not very clear but that would not help the petitioners in getting a decision in their favour. the counter affidavit filed in the connected writ petition, the reference of which has been made above clarified the position beyond all doubts. 21. The third argument of the petitioners' learned counsel was about noncompliance of R. 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. the counter affidavit filed in the connected writ petition, the reference of which has been made above clarified the position beyond all doubts. 21. The third argument of the petitioners' learned counsel was about noncompliance of R. 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. He urged that the seniority list should have been prepared in accordance with the project and as no such seniority list has been prepared, the petitioners' termination of service could not be said to have been made in accordance with the rule "last come first go". We do not find any merit in this submission. R. 77 of the aforesaid Rules requires preparation of a seniority list of the workers employed under the charge of a District Officer in charge separately category wise. This had been done in the instant case. The seniority lists of the petitioners of this case and other cases were produced before us. From the seniority lists we have found that no breach of the requirement of `last come first go' had been done. It is not correct to argue that the seniority list should have been of all the employees working in whole of the project. There is nothing in R. 77 which could justify the making of the said argument. 22. The petitioners next argued that as they worked on the 15th and 16th of April, 1982, the notices terminating their services with effect from 15th April, 1982 should be held to be illegal. The averments of the petitioners have been denied in the counter affidavit. It has been alleged on behalf of the contesting respondents that the petitioners were directed by the Permanent Way Inspector Construction (West) Gorakhpur under whose unit the petitioners were working to report at the office on 15th April, 1982 and on the 15th April, 1982 all the petitioners attended the office of the P.W. 1, Gorakhpur. The notices terminating their services were sought to be served on them along with their wages and retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of the notice. Out of 383 casual labourers working under P.W. 1, (West), 242 accepted their dues and notices but 141 casual labourers who were although present, refused to accept the notices and their dues. The notices terminating their services were sought to be served on them along with their wages and retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of the notice. Out of 383 casual labourers working under P.W. 1, (West), 242 accepted their dues and notices but 141 casual labourers who were although present, refused to accept the notices and their dues. A denial of this pars of the counter-affidavit has been made in the rejoinder, but after considering the two affidavits we find it difficult to accept the version of the petitioners. It has not been denied that out of 383 casual labourers, 242 accepted the dues and notices. Further, it has not been controverted that they were not present in the P.W. 1's office on 15th April, 1982. (Their presence in the office on that date goes a long way to show that similar intimation of being present in the office of P.W. 1 on the aforesaid date must have been given to the petitioners as well. The petitioners since did not accept the notices or the dues offered to them, they cannot be permitted to argue that the notices served on them were invalid as they had worked on 15th and 16th April, 1982. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the entries made in the muster roll of 16th April, 1982. A number of circumstances were pointed out by Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Railways in justification of the argument that the entries in the muster roll were not made in due course and that they had been obtained for the purpose of the present writ. Taking all the facts and circumstances into account, we consider the suggestion given by the Railway counsel as probable and negative the submission about invalidity of the notices on the grounds mentioned above. 23. At this place, we may only briefly point out that there is a difference between a casual labour of open line and a casual labour of project. ' In case of the casual labour of open line, after completion of 128 days of continuous service he attains a temporary status and starts getting wages on monthly basis with facilities of yearly increment, passes, P.T.O's, LAP and casual leave. ' In case of the casual labour of open line, after completion of 128 days of continuous service he attains a temporary status and starts getting wages on monthly basis with facilities of yearly increment, passes, P.T.O's, LAP and casual leave. But in case of a casual labour who works on project he starts getting the wages at the rate 1/30th of the minimum scale rate of pay every day which is inclusive of dearness allowance. That too starts getting after completion of 180 days of continuous service, he is not entitled to any other facility. 24. Taking the aforesaid fact into account, we take up the next argument of the petitioners' counsel. The submission made before us by Sri B. D. Mandhyan. learned counsel appearing in one of the connected writ petitions was that under cl. (b) of S. 25-F, the worker has to be paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which should be equivalent to fifteen days average pay, for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. He urged that the petitioner had neither been paid the Dearness Allowance. He contended that one month's wages as required by S. 25-F were not tendered to the petitioners. The petitioners were casual workers employed on project. Para 9 of the counter-affidavit states "their wages were paid on daily basis at a flat rate prescribed by the administration from time to time. The casual labour on project after I80 (lays of continuous service is paid 1/30th of the minimum time scale rate of pay which includes Dearness Allowance also. No separate Dearness Allowance is paid on Project." 25. The statement of facts appearing from the counter-affidavit and which has not been denied or controverted in the rejoinder, is that the aforesaid amount had been offered to the petitioners. They did not accept the same. Since the petitioners were daily rated workmen, there was no question of the petitioners being paid Dearness Allowance. 26. Sri B. D. Mandhyan. counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions argued that persons junior to some of the petitioners had been retained in service. The allegations made have been denied. The submission of the petitioners' learned counsel that some of the juniors had been retained is not made out. 27. No other point was raised. 28. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.