JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged his order of termination dated 12.2.1988 (Annex.4). 2. The petitioner, who is Higher Secondary pass, was appointed as Gram' Sewak by the order dated 10.2.1988 for a period of six months or subject to availability of selected candidates through Selection Commission, whichever is earlier. On 14.11.1986 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30.11.1986 by order dated 14.11.1986 (Annex.2). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 28.2.1987 and his services were regularised from 1.12.1986 to 3.2.1987. He was given all the benefits for the period he remained out of service. Then again the services of the petitioner were terminated on 11.2.1988 with effect from 15.2.1988 in pursuance of the direction issued by the State Government by the order dated 20.1.1988 that all the employees who have been appointed after 31.12.1985 and they are not trained, their services may be terminated. In pursuance of this order the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 15.2.1988 vide order dated 12.2.1988. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayat Samiti is an industry as has been held by this Court in Jeth Mal & 47 others v. State of Rajasthan (1985 W.L.N.(UC) 537) . Therefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been contended that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed initially at the time of appointment. Be that as it may, the fact remains that since the Panchayat Samiti is an industry and the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, as such before terminating the services of the petitioner, the compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is a condition precedent. In the present case, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with as neither one month's notice has been given nor any compensation as contemplated in Section 25-F of the Act has been paid. 5. For this reason, the writ petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 12.2.1988 (Annex.4) is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 5. For this reason, the writ petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 12.2.1988 (Annex.4) is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits. It is open for the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******