JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 prays for time to file reply. It was reported on 27th July 1989 that the service is complete, but, no reply has been filed so far. The prayer made by Mr. Choudhary for adjournment is rejected. 2. In the seniority list issued on 23.9.87 the date of appointment of the petitioner has been shown as 1.11.82 and she has been shown at serial No. 9 in the seniority list of temporary employees. 3. Vide Annexure - 3, recommdations were made for regularising the junior persons and the petitioner's name has not been shown for regularising his services. Petitioner moved an application, Annex. 5 and submitted that the compromise entered into should be implemented and he should be given regular pay. It seems that the petitioner also represented the case of (All& employees and might be a person who have taken extreme part in the strike sometime in 1988. This fact is evident from Annexure-6 in which there is a reference that there was a strike for 23 days. Petitioner has been informed vide order dated, 14/19.9.88 that her services are not required and she will be entitled to salary of Rs. 375/- as one month's notice was served to her. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that the regular pay has not been paid to her. The second grievance is that there is violation of the rules. 5. On behalf of the respondents no reply has been filed. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was employed in 1981 and his services were terminated in 1988. Naturally, he has worked for about 7 years and no compensation under section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has been paid to him on account.of 7 years' service. This itself is a clear violation. 7. In the result, the writ- petition is accepted. The order terminating the services of the petitioner dated, 14/19.9.88 is hereby set aside. The petitioner may be treated in continuous service and he shall be entitled for back wages. 8. As far as the back wages arc concerned, the petitioner can move application under section 33 (c) (2) of the Act before the Labour Court. If it is found that the petitioner was in gainful employment during the intervening period, the respondents_ can deduct such amount from the back wages of the petitioner. 8. As far as the back wages arc concerned, the petitioner can move application under section 33 (c) (2) of the Act before the Labour Court. If it is found that the petitioner was in gainful employment during the intervening period, the respondents_ can deduct such amount from the back wages of the petitioner. Petitioner should be taken back in service and should be given regular salary which is given to other Sweepers. 9. Petitioner shall also be entitled for the minimum basic salary of the post of Sweeper from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e. 13.4.89. Petitioner shall also be paid other allowances except the compensatory allowance. The case of the petitioner should also be considered by the authorities for regularisation according to law.Writ Petition Allowed. *******