JUDGMENT P. C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J.—Inspite of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 422 and Mohan Lai v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd, AIR 1981 SC 1253 and the several decision of this Court following the same, the authorities concerned have failed to comply with the requirements of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the Act), in discharging the daily-rated workmen from service and in consequence the State has to disburse large amounts by way of wages due to those workmen as the discharge from service in violation of section 25-F of the Act is illegal and the employee concerned is deemed to be continuing in service. 2. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated Beldar in March 1984. According to her, she was discharging the duties of Assistant Store Keeper/Out-turn Clerk at different periods of time, She was discharged from service on July 31, 1987 without compliance to the requirements of section 25-F of the Act. She has prayed for two reliefs in this writ petition, namely : (1) for a declaration that her discharge from service is illegal and that she should be deemed to be continuing in service and (2) that she is entitled to-pay equal to an Assistant Store Keeper/Out-turn Clerk as she had been discharging the duties of these posts during the period of her engagement. 3. Annexure R-l, statement, produced alongwith the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Circle, H P. PWD., Solan, shows the number of days that the petitioner had worked in each month from March 1984 onwards until her discharge on July 31, 1987. The statement shows that during the period of 12 months prior to her discharge she had worked for a total 3^8 days and hence she is entitled to the benefits of section 25-F of the Act In the affidavit-in-reply, a preliminary objection is taken that the remedy of the petitioner is to have recourse to the Industrial Tribunal for appropriate relief there by admitting that the petitioner is a workman and the employer is an industry. The petitioner had been working in the National Highway Division of the H. P. PWD. The petitioner had been working in the National Highway Division of the H. P. PWD. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Des Raj etc; v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC 1182, has held that the Irrigation Department of the Government is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It should, therefore, be held that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner in this case. The respondents have no case that the discharge of the petitioner from service was in compliance to the requirements of section 25-F of the Act The only reply in regard to the petitioners case that her services were terminated without compliance to the requirement of section 25-F, is that the termination was on account of non-availability of funds and that the discharge from service had been on the principle of last come first go. 4. In the affidavit-in-reply it is also stated that the petitioner had worked as an Out-turn Clerk from 1-3-1\ 87 to 31-7-1987. Her case that she had been working as Out-turn Clerk or as Assistant Store Keeper is not accepted in the affidavit-in-reply but Annexure R-l, statement, filed along-with the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer shows that during the period of 12 months prior to her discharge from service on July 31, 1987, she had been working as Assistant Store Keeper or as an Out-turn Clerk except for a short period of 26 days in December, 1986 as a Beldar We have already seen from Annexure R-1 itself that the petitioner had worked for 348 days during the aforesaid period of 12 months. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner had been working as an Out-turn Clerk/ Assistant Store Keeper during the relevant period. 5. The discharge of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Act and it does not fall within any of the exempted categories mentioned therein. From the facts adverted to, it is clear that the petitioner had been in continuous service for a period of over one year within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act. From the facts adverted to, it is clear that the petitioner had been in continuous service for a period of over one year within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act. She is, therefore, entitled to the benefits of section 25-F which requires one months notice in writing or one months salary in lieu thereof and before a workman is discharged from service he should also be paid retrenchment compensation as provided for in clause (b). Since these requirements have not been complied with the discharge of the petitioner from service, which amounts to retrenchment, is illegal and cannot be sustained in law vide Mohan Lai9s case (supra). The Supreme Court in that case at page 1262 states: "......But there is a catena of decisions which rule that where the termination is illegal especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits." Following this decision of the Supreme Court, we declare that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service as a daily-rated workman with all service benefits applicable to her. 6. We have already seen that the petitioner had been working as an Assistant Store Keeper/Out-turn Clerk atleast during the period ot 12 months prior to her illegal retrenchment on July 31,1987. On the principle of equal pay for equal work she is entitled to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regular Assistant Store Keeper/Out-turn Clerk in the department vide the decision of the Supreme Court in The Dharwad Distt. P W D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others etc v. State of Karnataka and others etc, AIR 1^90 SC 883. The respondents are directed to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner at the rate equivalent to the minimum in the pay scale applicable to Assistant Store Keeper/Out-turn Clerk from the date of filing this petition (August 13, 1987). 7. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Parties will suffer their respective costs. Writ petition allowed.