JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, in this case, was appointed initially on 20th June, 1987 as a Driver on daily wages in the office of the Director Project, Asstt. Gramin Vikas Abhikaran, District Jhalawar, Jaipur and on 1st September, 1987, his services were terminated saying that D.R.D.A. no more requires the services of the petitioner. Thereafter on 10th September, 1987 the petitioner was again appointed as a temporary Driver and his services were terminated with effect from 4th May, 1988 by the order dated 3rd May, 1988 (Ex. 4). The petitioner was again appointed with effect from 7th May, 1988 by an order dated 12th May, 1988 (Ex. 5) and he continued in the service until the order dated 7th November, 1988 was passed, whereby his services were terminated with effect from 9th November, 1988. It is this order (Annx. 6) against which the present writ petition has been filed. The writ petition has been opposed by Miss Deepa Ajwani on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had been appointed purely on temporary basis in a NR and P (sic NREP) Scheme and there was no vacant post against which the petitioner could be continued and there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act because it was mentioned in the earlier order itself that the petitioner's services could be terminated without any notice. 2. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. Merely because the petitioner's services could be terminated at any time was no ground for dispensing with the requirement of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had completed 240 days continuously barring the notional breaks for few days. Thus, once the petitioner is held to be entitled to the benefits of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is a case in which it is clearly made out that the requirements of Section 25F have not been followed while passing the impugned orders; that no retrenchment compensation has been paid nor 15 days' salary for the completed years of the service or the period in excess of six months has been paid; the impugned order has been passed without following the pre-requisites and pre-conditions for retrenching the petitioner. The impugned retrenchment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the impugned order (Annx. The impugned retrenchment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the impugned order (Annx. 6) deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated on the post which was held by him prior to the passing of the termination order dated 7th November, 1988. So far as the wages for the period falling between the date of termination and the date on which the petitioner is to be reinstated is concerned, it is directed that subject to the production of an affidavit before the respondents that the petitioner has not remained gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of enforced indleness, the respondents if fail to find out any material within a period of one month from the date of production of affidavit that the petitioner was gainfully employed else-where all consequential benefits with regard to back wages shall also be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the impugned order dated 7th November, 1988 had never been passed. 4. The Writ petition is allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******