Honble SAXENA, J.— The petitioner by filing this petition has prayed that his termination order dated 29.4.1989 (Annex.15) and letter dated 22.4.1989 (Annex.14) of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (respondent No.3) along with the resolution No.7 (2) dated 12.4.1989 of the District Establishment Committee, Jodhpur and the Circular letter dated 24.3.1989 (Annex. 13) issued by the Special Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (respondent No.2) be quashed and the respondents be directed to make payment of salary to him in the regular pay scale for the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and to regularise his services on the post of L.D.C. with all consequential benefits along with interest on his arrears at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum. (2) Briefly the case of the petitioner as stated in his writ petition is that he has studied upto Hr. Secondary and has the requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. Initially, he was appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bap (respondent No.l) on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month for the period from 15.4.1985 to 15.5.1985 vide order dated 15.4.1985 (Annex. 1). Thereafter again vide order dated 18.7.1985 (Annex. 2) he was appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month w.e.f. 25.7.1985 to 15.5.1986 or till a trained selected teacher was made available. This appointment continued upto 15.5.1986. It is alleged by the petitioner that though in pursuance of appointment order Annexure-2, he was appointed to the post of Primary School Teacher, but in fact he was allowed to continue on the post of L.D.C., which was lying vacant. Thus, he was directed to discharge his duties on the post of L.D.C. It appears that from 16.5.1986 to 13.04.1987 the petitioner was not employed in the service of the Panchayat Samiti, Bap. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 14.4.1987 (Annex.4) temporarily appointed the petitioner as L.D.C. on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day as the sanctioned post of L.D.C. was lying vacant. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 14.4.1987 (Annex.4) temporarily appointed the petitioner as L.D.C. on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day as the sanctioned post of L.D.C. was lying vacant. It was also mentioned in the said order that payment of salary to the petitioner shall be made from the own income of the Panchayat Samiti. The Panchayat Samiti, Bap in its general meeting dated 24.4.1987 by its resolution No. 7 (4) also approved the petitioners appointment as daily rated L.D.C. It appears that the respondent No.l by his letter dated 9.7.1987 (Annex.5) made a recommendation to the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Jodhpur for according approval of the appointment of the petitioner as a daily rated L.D.C. against the vacant post under the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP). This recommendation was accepted by the Project Director, DRDA, Jodhpur on 13.7.1987 and petitioners appointment as daily rated L.D.C. under the NREP was approved. It is the case of the petitioner that before converting his appointment under the NREP Scheme neither any notice was given to him nor his consent was taken. Thereafter, the daily wage of the petitioner was raised from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 1830/- per day vide order dated 10.7.1987 (Annex. 6) issued by respondent No.1. Since the petitioner was directed to work on Sundays on account of huge quantum of work under famine relief works and other relief works, by office order dated 17.10.1987 (Annex. 7), he was also allowed salaries on Sundays. The respondent No.1 by his letter dated 17.12.1987 (Annex. 8) also intimated the Director and the Special Secretary Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department (respondent No.2) that in pursuance of the resolution No. 7 (4) passed in the general meeting of the Panchayat Samiti dated 24.4.1987 and after seeking the approval of the Project Director, DRDA, Jodhpur, the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated L.D.C. in the Accounts Section of NREP, that his work had been satisfactory and recommended that he should be appointed substantively on the post of L.D.C. The general body of the Panchayat Samiti, Bap in its resolution dated 23.12.1987 (Annex. 9) also resolved that the District Collector and the concerning higher authorities be requested for regularising the appointment of the petitioner on the post of L.D.C., because Shri O.P. Sharma, L.D.C. was under suspension for last 7-8 years. 9) also resolved that the District Collector and the concerning higher authorities be requested for regularising the appointment of the petitioner on the post of L.D.C., because Shri O.P. Sharma, L.D.C. was under suspension for last 7-8 years. Accordingly, the respondent No.l vide his letter dated 6.4.1988 (Annex. 10) requested the Collector, Jodhpur for according sanction for giving regular appointment to the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. in regular pay scale w.e.f. 14.4.1987. The Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bap by his D.O. letter dated 19.12.1988 (Annex. 12) also requested the Director, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan (respondent No.2) for regularisation of the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. It was also mentioned therein that the petitioner was working as a daily rated L.D.C. since 14.4.1987 in the NREP, RLEGP, DDP & Famine Relief Schemes satisfactorily and that he has also crossed the maximum age limit for the appointment in the Government service and has become over age. However, the respondent No. 2 by his impugned letter dated 24.3.1989 (Annex. 13) addressed to all Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishads and Vikas Adhikaris of all Panchayat Samitis in the State intimated that it has been observed that generally when any post falls vacant on account of the retirement, transfer, death, promotion or training of an employee in the Panchayat Samiti, information thereof is not sent to the Development Department by the concerning Panchayat Samiti is, that on the other hand temporary or daily wage appointments are made against such posts and thereafter recommendations are made for regularisation of such employees to the Development Department, that some times the services of such employees are terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act with the result that such employees procure stay orders either from the Labour Court or the High Court and that ultimately such illegal terminations are quashed and those employees are reinstated in service with back wages resulting in unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer. The respondent No.2, therefore, directed in future no appointment either temporary or on daily wages basis be made against any vacant post and that if any appointments on daily wages or on temporary basis have been made by the Panchayat Samitis then the services of such employees should be terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 communicated the resolution No. 7 (2) dated 12.4.1989 passed by the District Establishment Committee, Jodhpur to the respondent No.l intimating that the appointment of petitioner Om Prakash Sharma as daily rated L.D.C. was not made under first and second proviso to. Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959, and that petitioners appointment was made despite the total ban on appointments imposed by the Government and, therefore, his services be terminated and compliance thereof be reported. Thereupon in pursuance of letter dated 2.4.1989 (Annex. 14), the respondent No.l issued the impugned termination order dated 29.4.1989 giving him one months notice pay and retrenchment compensation under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that there was no excessive work in the NREP. It is the case of the petitioner that the cheque dated 1.5.1989 for an amount of Rs. 926/- given to him along with the termination order could not have been encashed on the same day though his services were dispensed with w.e.f. the fore-noon of 1.5.1989, the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 25F (a) & (b) of the Act were not complied with, and, therefore, his retrenchment is void ab initio and illegal. He has also contended that his services have been terminated in the arbitrary exercise of power, which amounts to unfair labour practice. He has asserted that the impugned order Annexure-13 could not be applied in his case because the same did not operate retrospectively. On the other hand, respondent No1l had made repeated recommendations for his regularisation on the post of L.D.C. against the vacant post, but his services have been terminated arbitrarily and illegally. He has further contended that on the basis of well crystallised principle of equal pay for equal work, he is entitled to get salary in the prescribed pay scale of the L.D.C. and also regularisation on the said post. (3) Notices were issued to respondents to show cause as to why this writ petition be not admitted? He has further contended that on the basis of well crystallised principle of equal pay for equal work, he is entitled to get salary in the prescribed pay scale of the L.D.C. and also regularisation on the said post. (3) Notices were issued to respondents to show cause as to why this writ petition be not admitted? (4) The respondent No.l in its reply has averred that the petitioner was not duly selected for the post of L.D.C., but was appointed on temporarily on daily wages under the National Relief Employment Programme, that no temporary or sanctioned post of L.D.C. was lying vacant in Panchayat Samiti, Bap and that due to poor financial condition of the State, there was a total ban on the appointment of temporary/daily wages employees imposed by the Government. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were retrenched complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It has been emphatically denied that the petitioner was working on any sanctioned/substantive vacant post of L.D.C. (5) No counter has been filed by other respondents. (6) The petitioner in his rejoinder has specifically admitted that he was initially appointed as a daily rated L.D.C. temporarily against the NREP Scheme, but payment of his salary were made from the own income of the Panchayat Samiti. He has averred that even if it is presumed that his appointment was made against the NREP Scheme, the said Scheme has been converted into Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, wherein sanctioned post of one L.D.C. was in existence vide orders dated 16.12.1988 and 26.8.1989 Annexures 16 & 17 respectively, issued by the Dy. Secretary, Special Schemes & Integrated Rural Development Department and whereby 237 posts of L.D.Cs. for 237 Panchayat Samitis were sanctioned under the DRDA for the fiscal year 1988-89 and thereafter for the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana for the temporary posts of 237 L.D.Cs. were sanctioned at the rate of one post for each Panchayat Samiti upto 28.2.1990 or till further orders, whichever was earlier. He has reiterated that since he has discharged the duties of the L.D.C., he was entitled to get salary in the prescribed pay scale of the L.D.C. on the basis of equal pay for equal work and also for his regularisation on the said post. He has reiterated that since he has discharged the duties of the L.D.C., he was entitled to get salary in the prescribed pay scale of the L.D.C. on the basis of equal pay for equal work and also for his regularisation on the said post. He has clearly admitted that though he was not a selected candidate by the District Establishment Committee, but till the selected candidate is not available, he has a right to continue as L.D.C. and hence on this count also his termination is illegal. (7) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Dy. Government Advocate at length and carefully perused the relevant record. On the joint request of the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. (8) The main contention of Shri P.P. Choudhary is that since the petitioner has worked on the post of L.D.C. though on a temporary and/or a daily wages basis since 14.4.1987 till his retrenchment on 1.5.1989 and has discharged similar duties and responsibilities of L.D.C., and his work was quite satisfactory and that even respondent No.1 by his letters dated 17.12.1987, 6.4.1988 & 19.12.1988 Annexures 8,10 & 12 respectively recommended for his regularisation in the regular pay scale of L.D.C., therefore, on the basis of the principle of equal work for equal pay" he is entitled to get the salary & allowances in the regular pay scale of the L.D.C. w.e.f. his initial date of appointment. For this he has relied on Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (1), General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna & Ors. (2) and Pancha Ram & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (3). (9) On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents have vehemently contended that since the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. temporarily on daily wages under the NREP Scheme, which was lateron converted into the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, he has no right for employment nor can claim salary in the prescribed pay scale, because the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply to such schemes as has been held by the Apex Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. (4). (4). (10) Admittedly, the petitioner was neither selected as L.D.C. by the District Establishment Committee nor his appointment vide Annexure-4 was made under the proviso (1) & (2) of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules, 1959. On the other hand, from the letter dated 9.7.1987 (Annex. 5) sent by the Vikas Adhikari to the Project Director, DRDA, Jodhpur, it stands firmly established that petitioner was appointed as a daily rated L.D.C. temporarily to assist the U.D.C., who was also looking after the additional work of Junior Accountant in the NREP Scheme. This fact further gets strengthened by the office order dated 27.10.1987 (Annex. 7), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners appointment was made under the NREP Scheme. Again in the letter dated 17.12.1987 (Annex. 8) sent by respondent No.l to the respondent N.6, this fact has been further re-affirmed. Even in Para No.2 of his rejoinder, the petitioner has in most unequivocal, unambiguous and explicit terms admitted that he was initially appointed against the NREP Scheme, which was subsequently converted into Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, wherein one post of L.D.C. was sanctioned for Panchayat Samiti, Bap vide Annexures 17 & 18. Therefore, the petitioner was not appointed against any regular post of the Panchayat Samiti. (11) In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Admn. (cited supra), it has been held that workers employed under the Scheme by the District Rural Development Agency under the temporary Government Schemes like NREP and Jawahar Rojgar Yojana have no right to claim regularisation of their service, because of completion of 240 or more days of work, that indiscriminate regularisation jeopardises the public interest and the object of such schemes, that right to work and livelihood under Art. 41 of the Constitution has not yet been recognised as a fundamental right though it has been broadly interpreted in the context of Art. 21 and that its deprivation must be in accordance with the procedure established by law. It has further been held that the right to work and livelihood under Art. 41 is qualified by the expression "within the limits of its economic capacity and development." (12) The Honble Supreme Court has held as under: — "The object of the Scheme was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor much less to the unemployed in general. No fault can be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the Scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such Scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the Scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such Schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the Schemes are meant. That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc. Though broadly interpreted as a necessary logical corollary, right to life would include the right to livelihood and, therefore, right to work, but this is in context of Article 21 which seeks to protect persons against the deprivation of their life except according to procedure established by law. This country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so far no attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any the less fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the Chapter on Directive Principles Article 41 of which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same within the limits of its economic capacity and development". Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the Chapter on Directive Principles Article 41 of which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same within the limits of its economic capacity and development". Thus even while giving the direction to the State to ensure the right to work, the Constitution makers thought it prudent not to do so without qualifying it. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ; AIR 1986 SC 180 , referred to. Although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of ragularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such backdoor entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agen-cies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agen-cies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days they have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts." (13) This view has been further re-affirmed by the Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (5). It has been reiterated that so far as temporary or time bound schemes like NREP/Jawahar Rojgar Yojana are concerned, the matter has been exhaustively dealt with and pronounced upon in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union case (supra) and that there is no need to add anything to it. Therefore, the concept of equal work for equal pay in the context of NREP Schemes -Jawahar, Rojgar Yojana is both unwarranted and misplaced and this doctrine cannot be pressed into service or made applicable in the instant case. (14) In Dhirendra Chamolis case (cited supra), casual workers on daily wages basis were engaged by the Government in different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country. Nehru Yuvak Kendras were in existence for more than 12 years. The ground taken by the Government was that the Nehru Yuvak Kendras were temporary and that in absence of sanctioned post, the casual workers on daily wages basis, who were working for more than 12 years can not be regularised. The Apex Court negativing the contention raised on behalf of the Government held that in absence of sanctioned post, such casual workers on daily wages basis performing the same duties as performed by regular Class IV Employees against sanctioned posts were entitled to salary and conditions of service on par with the regular persons. The Apex Court negativing the contention raised on behalf of the Government held that in absence of sanctioned post, such casual workers on daily wages basis performing the same duties as performed by regular Class IV Employees against sanctioned posts were entitled to salary and conditions of service on par with the regular persons. Apparently the facts of Dhirendra Chamolis case are not comparable, but are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the case in hand. (15) In General Secretary Bihar State Road Transport Corporations case (cited supra) relying on the law laid down in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (6) and U.P. Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association vs. U.O.I. & Others (7), the Honble Apex Court directed respondent Corporation to prepare a reasonable scheme for regularisation of the casual labourers and to pay salary & allowances to them equal to the minimum pay of the pay scale of the regularly employed persons in the corresponding cadres of the Corporation. Apparently the casual labours were appointed in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, which was a permanent department, while the NREP and Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Schemes are temporary Schemes having a different object for giving employment to the unemployed rural force. Therefore, this case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. (16) In Pancha Rams case (cited supra), the petitioners were appointed as Ward Boys on daily wages basis in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and they were continuing as such for many years. It was held that it cannot be said that their appointment was made keeping in view the temporary need or staff pressure of work in the Hospital and that it amounted to unfair labour practice. It was held that they were entitled to get same pay which the other Ward Boys working on permanent basis were getting. A direction was also issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench to the State Government to frame the rules and standing order in respect of such workmen. But keeping in view the latest trend of the Apex Court as reflected in Delhi Development Horticulture . Employees Unions case and Piara Singhs case the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can not be made applicable for the daily wages employees under the NREP or Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Schemes. But keeping in view the latest trend of the Apex Court as reflected in Delhi Development Horticulture . Employees Unions case and Piara Singhs case the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can not be made applicable for the daily wages employees under the NREP or Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Schemes. Therefore, the petitioner is neither entitled to get pay in the prescribed pay scale of L.D.C. nor for his regularisation on the post of L.D.C. (17) The next contention of Shri P.P. Choudhary is that the circular letter dated 24.3.1989 (Annex. 13) issued by the respondent No.2 reflects arbitrary exercise of power and that Annexure 13 can only have the prospective effect, it could not operate retrospectively to the prejudice of petitioners rights. Therefore, letter Annexure-13 should be quashed. (18) To my mind this argument is devoid of any substance and against the contents of circular letter Annexure 13 and the provisions of the Act, 1947. As mentioned earlier, in circular letter Annexure-13, the respondent No.2 has deprecated the practice of the Panchayat Samitis in filling the post irregularly and by giving appointments temporarily and on daily wages without informing the Government, and thereafter, making recommendations for regularising such irregular appointments. It has also been emphasized therein that the services of such temporary/daily wages employees are terminated without giving any notice or complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act, 1947 with the result that such illegal termination orders are set aside by the Labour Court or the High Court causing unnecessary financial burden on the State. The respondent No.2, therefore, stressed that if any employee has been appointed irregularly on temporary/daily wages basis then his services should be terminated after complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act, 1947 and that in future no appointment either temporary or on daily wages basis should be made against any vacant post by the Panchayat Samiti. The observations made & directions given by respondent No.2 in circular letter Annexure-13, therefore, neither project any arbitrary exercise of power nor those amount to unfair labour practice. Hence, it can not be said that letter Annex. 13 was issued by respondent No.2 for some ulterior consideration or by way of victimisation. Therefore, circular letter Annexure-13 is not illegal, malafide or against the provisions of law. Hence, it can not be said that letter Annex. 13 was issued by respondent No.2 for some ulterior consideration or by way of victimisation. Therefore, circular letter Annexure-13 is not illegal, malafide or against the provisions of law. (19) In pursuance of the directions given in letter Annexure-13, the District Establishment Committee, Jodhpur examined the case of petitioner and found that despite the total ban on the appointment of daily rated employees, he was appointed by respondent No.l. It also found that the petitioner was not duly selected under the proviso (1) & (2) of rule 23 of the Rules, 1959, that the respondent No.l had irregularly appointed the petitioner temporarily and that his services could not be extended. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (respondent No.3), therefore, by his letter dated 22.4.1989 (Annexure 14) sent the resolution passed by the District Establishment Committee to the respondent No.l for compliance. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.l passed order dated 29.4.1989 (Annex. 15) tendering one months notice pay and the retrenchment compensation to the petitioner and terminated his services w.e.f. 1.5.1989. It was also specifically mentioned therein that there was no excess work in the NREP Scheme and as such petitioners services were not more required. The petitioner has neither submitted the cheque dated 1.5.1989 for an amount of Rs. 926/-, nor has submitted any document to show that the said amount was not tendered or paid to him at the time of his termination on 1.5.1989. He has also not filed any document to prove that the said amount of Rs. 926/- also included his salary for the month of April, 1989. Therefore, he has miserably failed to prove that the mandatory provisions of section 25F (1) & (2) of the Act, 1947 were not complied with. On the other hand it stands amply proved that the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Act, 1947 were duly complied with. Therefore, the retrenchment of the petitioner is not void ab initio, illegal or non est, and the question of his reinstatement along with back wages does not arise. The cases relied on by the petitioner namely Gammon India Ltd. vs. Niranjan Dass (8), Narotam Chopra vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. (9), Prabhu Dayal Sharma vs. State of Raj., & Ors. The cases relied on by the petitioner namely Gammon India Ltd. vs. Niranjan Dass (8), Narotam Chopra vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. (9), Prabhu Dayal Sharma vs. State of Raj., & Ors. ,(10) wherein it has been held that if the retrenchment of a workman has been made without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Act 1947 then such a termination is void and non est and that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. (20) No other point was pressed before me. (21) Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition fails. No order as to costs.