JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has raised the pure questions of law pertaining to the interpretation of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules (for short 'the Rules') and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (heareinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is an ex-employee of respondent No. 1 viz. Rajasthan Rajya Pathya Pustak Mandal, was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on daily wage basis on 1-7-77. In lieu of appointment the petitioner was issued a Certificate (Annex-1) dated 12th March, 1982, by the Management of respondent No. 1 and a perusal of the said certificate reveals that the appointment was for a short duration i.e. for the period from 1-7-77 to 31-8-77 and from 1-5-78 to 21-8-78.It has been contended in the writ petition that the aforesaid period was extended from time to time by the respondents till the termination of the services of the petitioner on 30th June, 1986. 2. It is further contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was performing his duties quite satisfactorily during all this period under the control of respondent No. 3 without having any blemish whatsoever during his entire tenure of service. A few certificates of experience were also issued in lieu of good services rendered by the petitioner to the management i.e. respondent No. 3 vide Annex-1 to 4, in this regard. It is further contended that since 1st July, 1977, the petitioner continuously discharged his duties without any kind of break on the post of LDC till his verbal termination from service in June, 1986 by respondent No. 3 and that too without assigning any reason. The petitioner had immediately protested in this matter by challenging his illegal termination but all to no avail. The petitioner was left with no alternative but to move this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 1989 since he became aware on 10th January, 1989 that subsequent to his termination from service number of persons have been appointed on daily-wage basis, in the same capacity of LDC on which the petitioner performed his duties, by the respondent-Management in violation of the statutory provisions of Rule 77 and 78 of the Rules. The details of persons who were appointed after the termination of the services of the petitioner have been indicated in para 8 of the writ petition from which it is apparent that 37 persons were appointed during the period from June, 1986 to August, 1989 and the said individuals are still continuing in service with the respondents. 3. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the retrenchment of the petitioner was effected without giving him one month's notice or wages in lieu of the notice period as contemplated by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act since the petitioner had completed about 9 years of continuous service and he was consequently entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to effecting the retrenchment of the petitioner, no seniority list was published in violation of Rule 76 to 78 of the Rules which envisage the statutory requirement to do so on the principle of 'last come first go'. Having failed to get any relief from the Management, the petitioner had served a notice for demand of justice dated 13th February, 1989 to the respondent-Management, which was served on the respondents vide Annex-6. 4. It will be pertinent to refer to the statutory provisions of Rule 77 and 78 (1) of the Rules which provide as under: "77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen-The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment. "78. "78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-(1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation to those vacancies by registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefore, to the address given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter : Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in the list referred to in Rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such vacancies : Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no boligattion on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen : Provided also that if a retrenched workmen, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer, does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any subsequent occasions." Section 25-H of the Act provides as under : 25-H Re-employment of retrenched workman.-Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons." 5. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board, Civil Writ Petition No. 2845/89 decided on 25-1-94 and in the matter of Hem Raj Vs. State & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 220/89 decided on 16-12-91 and in the matter of Sheopal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 755/89 decided on 22.10.92 and in the matter of Surya Prakash Sharma Vs. State & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 220/89 decided on 16-12-91 and in the matter of Sheopal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 755/89 decided on 22.10.92 and in the matter of Surya Prakash Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Text Book Board Jaipur & Ors., RLR 1991 (2) 691 , I am informed that Special Appeal was preferred by the Management-respondent against the said judgment, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in July, 1991. 6. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court is to the effect that the aggrieved workman is entitled to the reinstatement with all consequential benefits particularly in view of the violation of the mandatory requirement of Rule 77 and 78 of the Rules, which will give a cause to the workman to claim the compensation of damages and to claim re-employment from the employer. 7. It will be pertinent to mention here that inspite of service of the notice having been effected on the respondents way back on 23-11-91, no reply to the writ petition has been filed and neither any representative of the Management nor any counsel on behalf of the respondents in present today in the Court which itself proves that the Management of the respondents is not interested to contest the matter and it is settled proposition of law that where the contentions of the petitioner have not been specifically controverted by filing any reply to the writ petition, the same shall be accepted as admitted. 8. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions advanced at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits which would have legitimately accrued to the petitioner had he not been retrenched from the service. The petitioner shall be further entitled to back wages which will be computed by the Tribunal/Labour Court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes at, 1947. It is further directed that the order passed by this Court shall be implemented by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 2845/89 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 220/89 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 755/89 4. RLR 1991(2) 691. from the date of submitting a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. 9. It is further directed that the order passed by this Court shall be implemented by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 2845/89 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 220/89 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 755/89 4. RLR 1991(2) 691. from the date of submitting a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is consequently allowed, as indicated above, with costs which is quantified at Rs. 1500/-.Petition allowed. *******