JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Article 226, the petitioner prays for:- (1) quashing the oral order passed on 9-5-1987 by which his services were terminated, (2) payment of regular pay scale of a class IV employee to him; and (3) his regularisation and confirmation on the post of class IV employee w. e. f. May, 1963. 2. Briefly re-capitulated the averments disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Packer in May, 1963 on daily wages basis in the Government Central Press, Jaipur by respondent No. 2 viz. the Director, Printing & Stationery Govt. Central Press, Jaipur. The appointment order was not passed in writing. It was made verbally. He continued to work thereafter from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM nearly for 24 years. All of a sudden, his services were abruptly terminated verbally on 9-5-1987. When he reported himself for duty on 9-5-1987, work was not taken from him by the respondents and he was informed that his services were no more required. The petitioner approached the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Jaipur and put his grievance before him. The said officer summoned the employer. His efforts for conciliation did not succeed and he consequently submitted the failure report Annexure-2 to the State Government on 25-1-1988. The State Government passed no order and slept over the matter. The petitioner has now approached this Court and prays for the reliefs mentioned at the very outset. It is stated that the job of the Packer is that of a class IV employee. He should, therefore, be paid the salary in the pay scales of a class IV employee right from the date of his initial appointment. 3. No return was filed by the respondents despite repeated opportunities granted to them. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Government Advocate. 5. The petitioner has alleged that no order in writing was passed for his appointment and likewise no order terminating his services was passed by the respondents. He has filed his affidavit stating therein that he was appointed Packer in May, 1963 and his services were terminated on 9-5-87. Both these orders were passed verbally by the respondents. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents. The petitioner has filed Annexure-l and Annexure-2. Annexure-1 is the application, he submitted before the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer on 21-7-1987. Both these orders were passed verbally by the respondents. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents. The petitioner has filed Annexure-l and Annexure-2. Annexure-1 is the application, he submitted before the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer on 21-7-1987. Annexure-2 dated 25-1-1988 is the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer. Annexure-2 clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed Packer in May, 1963 and his services were abruptly terminated in May, 1987. Ex. 2 further shows that the petitioner was in continuous employment of the respondents for 24 years. The conciliation could not be effected between the parties because the State Government did not sanction any post even after 24 years. All these facts conclusively show that the petitioner had been in the employment of the respondents as a Packer from May, 1963 to May, 1987 on daily wages basis. 6. The Government Central Press, Jaipur has been taken to be an industry in a number of decisions by this Court. The petitioner was working as a Packer. He, therefore, comes within the definition of the workman as given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 7. Admittedly, the petitioner's services were terminated without making a compliance of the conditions mentioned in section 25-F of the Act. Every termination of service is retrenchment unless the case falls within the exceptions contained in the definition of 'retrenchment' given in section 2 (oo) of the Act. The petitioner does not fall within any of these 4 excepted categories. The termination of his service, therefore, amounts to retrenchment. Since the retrenchment was made without the compliance of the mandates of section 25-F, it is bad, void and nonest. This retrenchment cannot be upheld. 8. The petitioner prays that he be treated to be a class IV employee. It does not appear that he raised this question before the respondents. It is yet to be seen whether the Packer should be equated with the class IV employee. The petitioner is advised to raise this question before the respondents and thereafter if he feels aggrieved, he should approach this Court afresh. 9. In the result. we allow this writ petition and set aside the verbal order by which the respondents terminated the petitioner's service as Packer. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post of Packer with full back wages. 9. In the result. we allow this writ petition and set aside the verbal order by which the respondents terminated the petitioner's service as Packer. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post of Packer with full back wages. The petitioner will have the continuity of service. The reinstatement of the petitioner and the payment of back wages will be made to him within one month from now. Costs of the petition will be on the respondents. Costs assessed at Rs. 500/-.Petition allowed. *******