JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner Mahesh Choudhary. seeks to challenge the order of termination dated 2nd February, 1947, on the ground that the termination of his services amounts to retrenchment and being violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is void and illegal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Government Press on the post of Peon on daily wages basis in July, 198;. The services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 3, the Superintendent (Technical), Government Press, Jaipur without assigning any reason. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the termination of the services is in breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the impugned order of termination is void and illegal. 4. A notice to show cause was issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and allowed. In reply to the said notice the respondents have filed a reply contending that the petitioner was a daily rated employee and that he has an alternative efficacious remedy available to him by raising an industrial dispute Shri Mathur, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available to him under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act He has also contended that the petitioner being a daily rated employee, was not a regular employee he cannot therefore, invoke the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Shri Shah submitted that the petitioner was appointed in July, 1983 and when his services were terminated on 2nd February. 1 87, he had already completed 240 days of his continuous service in a year in the Government Press. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are attracted for all employees-whether he is daily rated employee or regular employee. 7. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition Shri Shah has submitted that the preliminary objection raised by Shri Mathur, learned Govern. ment Advocate, is fully covered by a Full Court decision of this Court in Bhanwar Lal v. RSTRC ( 1984 RLR 619 ) . 7. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition Shri Shah has submitted that the preliminary objection raised by Shri Mathur, learned Govern. ment Advocate, is fully covered by a Full Court decision of this Court in Bhanwar Lal v. RSTRC ( 1984 RLR 619 ) . In view of the proposition of law laid down by a full court decision of this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention raised by Shri Mathur. Also, there is no merit in the another objection raised by Shri Mathur that the provisions of Section 25F of the -Act are not attracted in case an employee is a daily rated worker. The Industrial Disputes Act does not admit any exception with regard to different categories of employees, whether he be a daily rated, monthly rated, temporary or permanent employee. All employees who have completed 240 days in a year are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner has completed 240 days of continuous service in a year As such the provisions of Section 25F of the Act are attracted. This is also proved on record that neither notice was given nor compensation was paid to the petitioner in termination of Section 25-F of the Act. Consequently, the order of termination is illegal and void and the same cannot be maintained. 9. In the premises aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner be reinstated in service with back wages within a period of one month. 10. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******