Judgment 1. Ashish N. Trivedi, J.-This Writ Petition had been filed by nine persons who were doing the work of Class IV employees in the Muzaffarpur Regional development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) impleading the State of Bihar. Vice Chairman of the Authority, Chief Engineer, and two executive Engineers of the Authority as the Respondents and, had prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay arrears of wages and to continue to pay the current wages in the regular pay scale from" the date of their appointments. 2. By three applications for amendment of the Writ Petition the petitioners have further prayed that the services of the petitioners be directed to be absorbed and regularised with effect from the availability of regular vacancies for them in Class IV and III services of the Authority. The notice dated 8-10-1993 (Annexure-8) terminating their services with effect from 10-11-1993 and directing them to collect one months wages and retrenchment compensation from the office of the Authority and the order dated 6-11-1993 by which their services were ordered to be terminated with effect from 10-11-1993 and they were required to collect the retrenchment compensation from the office of the Authority be also quashed. 3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 was engaged by the Authority on daily wages on 1-11-1980 Petitioners 2 to 5 were likewise engaged between 23-3-1983 and 2-12-1983 and petitioners 6 to 8 were engaged between 1-3-1984 and 2-7-1984 to do the work of Class IV employees. Petitioner no.9 was engaged on 1-10-1985 to perform the work of Road Roller driver in the Authority. According to them, they were paid wages lower than the minimum prescribed scale of pay of regular employee, although the nature of work performed by the petitioners was the same as was being done by the regular Class IV employees. They claim to have been appointed on daily wages as a result of local advertisement displayed on notice board and were duly selected and by the passage of time they have become overage for fresh appointment in government service. They claim to have been appointed on daily wages as a result of local advertisement displayed on notice board and were duly selected and by the passage of time they have become overage for fresh appointment in government service. The matter regarding retention or retrenchment on daily wages employees working in the Authority was placed before the Establishment committee of the Authority resolved on 21-10-1986 (Annexure-3) and it was decided that those who were working on daily wages before 31-12-1985 will continue on their posts and services of the persons appointed thereafter shall be terminated. This Resolution was approved by the Authority on 17-1-1987 and accordingly the Vice Chairman of the Authority issued an order dated 17-12-1988 (Annexure-4) permitting the petitioners to continue on the same terms and conditions until a decision was taken by the State government. 4. It has been stated that the petitioners are workmen and the authority is an industry and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable and their services have been terminated by the impugned orders in violation of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inasmuch as having rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a calender year but while terminating their services neither one months wages nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them, but they were asked to collect retrenchment compensation under the impugned orders from the office of the Authority. 5. The Writ Petition has been opposed and a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6 stating that petitioners were engaged to work on daily wages from time to time and were paid wages approved by the State Government. Though it has been disputed that they have not worked continuously, but it has not been disputed that the petitioner had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year or that they have not been appointed on the dates mentioned by the petitioners in the Writ Petition. It has been further stated that the authority had not authorised the Executive Engineers to engage the petitioners on daily wages. It has been further stated that the authority had not authorised the Executive Engineers to engage the petitioners on daily wages. It is claimed that the appointments/engagements were required to be made according to the Rules and in view of Sec.6 of the Bihar Regional development Authority Act, 1981, it is the Authority which is competent to make appointment on a post carrying salary of Rs 500/- per month and not the Executive Engineers. It has also been disputed that prior to engagement of the petitioners any advertisement had been made and it is stated that it was resolved by the Establishment Committee on 20-10-1986 that the persons who were engaged on or before 31st December, 1985 should be allowed to continue on daily wages but the State Government in exercise of its powers under Sec.65 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act annulled the Resolution dated 21-10-1986 of the Establishment Committee as well as the subsequent Resolution dated 17-1-1987 and in view of Government Order dated 13-2-1989 (Annexure-2) the petitioners have no right to continue in employment. 6. It has been further stated on behalf of the contesting respondents that the Authority in its meeting on 28.10.1992 resolved that the vacancies in different categories of posts be assessed correctly and after reciept of roster clearance from the Bureau of Public Enterprises, the posts be filed after due advertisement in accordance with the Rules and regulations and in case the petitioners are otherwise eligible, they would be entitled to apply add would be given preference in the matter of regular appointment. 7. In the additional counter affidavit filed on Behalf of the respondents, the right of the petitioners to claim regularisation of their services with effect from the date of availability of regular vacancies and the obligation of the respondents to frame scheme for absorption and regularisation of the services of the petitioners has been denied. It has been clarified that during the year 1980 to 1988 several persons including the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the Authority in a clandestine manner. It has been clarified that during the year 1980 to 1988 several persons including the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the Authority in a clandestine manner. It has been stated that two Writ Petitions were filed in this Couft, the petitioner no.1 and 8 others filed C. W. J. C. No.2238 of 1989 and C. W. J. C. No.2278 of 1989 was filed by Braj Kishore Pandey and 19 others for quashing the notice of termination as well as the Government Circular dated 13-2-1989 and in the Writ Petitions it was further prayed that the services of the petitioners be regularised. C. W J. C. No.2278 of 1989 was dismissed by this court on 20-1-1990 and C. W. J. C. No.2238 of 1989 was disposed of by this on 25-1-1990 and the orders contained in Annexure-5 series were quashed with liberty to the respondents to take proper action against the petitioners after giving them notice, and opportunity of hearing. 8. The 19 petitioners of C. W. J. C. No.2278 of 1989 filed two Writ petitions before this Court which were registered as C. W. J C. No.7801 of 1991 and C. WJ. C. No.4107 of 1992 for the same relief which are now sought by the present petitioners. These Writ Petitions were decided by this Court by an order dated 2-9-1992 directing the Respondent-State to consider the representation filed by the petitioners regarding regularisation of their services and to take a decision. The S. L. P. filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4-8-1993. 9. According to the respondents, the entire matter was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 28-10-1992 and it was resolved that the appointment of persons working on daily wages had been, made illegally and the State Government be requested not to regularise the service of such persons. In an another meeting held on 17-9-1993 displeasure was expressed in not taking any action in the matter of discontinuance of engagementof the persons working on daily wages. Accordingly a notice dated 8-10-1993 was issued requiring them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. The petitioners submitted their reply which was considered by the Authority and the same was rejected and accordingly the impugned order dated 6-11-1993 was issued terminating their services. 10. Accordingly a notice dated 8-10-1993 was issued requiring them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. The petitioners submitted their reply which was considered by the Authority and the same was rejected and accordingly the impugned order dated 6-11-1993 was issued terminating their services. 10. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6 denying that they had been illegally appointed and it is reiterated that there was no illegality or irregularity in the engagement of the petitioners and the inaction of the respondents in not paying salary in the regular pay scale admissible to various posts against which the petitioners were working is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. It has been asserted that the petitioners are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and retrenchment compensation having not been paid to them while terminating their services, the orders of terminations are void and unenforceable. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the authority passed the Resolution to regularise the services of the petitioners, yet the State Government in exercise of its powers under Sec.65 of the bihar Regional Development Authority Act arbitrarily directed discontinuance of the engagement of the petitioners, though work was available with the authority and they have the right to receive salary in the regular pay scale having continued in employment for sufficiently long time and the orders of termination, being violative of Sec.25-F of the Act, are void and the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement with full, back wages as well as salary in the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment aad the impugned orders (Annexure-13 series) cannot be sustained. 12. On behalf of the Respondents it has been contended that the petitioners had not been appointed after due advertisement and there had been no selection or competition and the petitioners having been illegally appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution they cannot make any complaint as their temporary services have been terminated in accordance with law in pursuance of the impugned orders contaided in Annexure-13 series. 13. It has, however, not been disputed by the contesting respondents that the petitioners are workmen the Authority an industry or section 25f of the Act is not applicable. 14. 13. It has, however, not been disputed by the contesting respondents that the petitioners are workmen the Authority an industry or section 25f of the Act is not applicable. 14. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material on record, I am of the view that the orders of termination as contained in Annexure-13 series cannot be sustained. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that the appointments of the petitioners have been made illegally and in an irregular manner and consequently they are not entitled to make any grievance against the order of termination is untenable in view of the fact that the services of the petitioners could be terminated only in accordance with law and not otherwise. The Respondents having thus failed to comply the provisions of section 25f of the Act the petitioners grievances that the termination of their service is illegal is legitimate. 16. Admittedly retrenchment compensation was not paid to the petitioners while terminating their services in pursuance of the order dated 6.11.1993 with effect from 10.11.1993 (Annexure-13 series ). 17. Section 25f of the Act is reproduced hereunder :- "25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) The workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice : (b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall , be equivalent to fifteen days average pay "for every completed year of continuous service" or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate- Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the official gazette". 18. 18. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman are that the workman has to be given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice and further that the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days adverage pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government. 19. It is settled law that clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.25f of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance of either of the conditions mentioned in in clauses (a) and (b) of section 25f of the Act render the retrenchment of the workman invalid and non-est. 20. Though the petitioners were issued notice dated 8.10.1993 (Annexure-8) informing them that their services will be terminated with effect from 10.11.1993. a perusal of the impugned orders dated 6.11.1993 Annexure-13 series) show that the services of the petitioners have been terminated with effect from 10.11.1993 and retrenchment compensation was not paid to them along with the order of termination of their services but they were asked to collect the amount from the office of the Authority and thus requirement of section 25f (b) of the Act was not complied. 21. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders of termination dated 6.11.1993 (Annexure-13 series) are void and the petitioners and deemed to have benn continuing in service with effect from 10.11.1993 and are entitled to back wages. 22. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Authority contended that the petitioners having been appointed on daily wages are hot entitled to claim regu-larisation or permanent appointment and in support of his contention placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, [ air 1992 SC 2130 ], and also relied upon a single judge decision of this Court in M. L. Gupta and others V/s. Instrumentation Ltd. through Chairman and others, [1992 (1) P. L. J. R.137] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sitaram Thakur V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1994 (1) P. L. J. R.68 ). 23. 23. In my view no direction or regularisation or absorption can be issued in favour of the petitioners in view of the judgment and order dated 20.1.1994 of a Division Bench of this Court in Bibhash Kumar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, [c. W. J. C. No.10291 of 1993] in which the following directions were issued : " (a) The respondent-Authority shall not make any appointment to class III and Class IV posts in the Authority, except in a regular manner. This direction will apply to posts which may have become vacant upon termination of the services of the petitioners. (b) As and when the respondent-Authority decides to appoint Class iii and Class IV employees, it shall do so in a regular manner after complying the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the petitioners apply, their cases shall also be considered in accordance with law after granting to the petitioners, if necessary, relaxation in the matter of age to the extent of service rendered by them in temporary capacity. (c) This will, however, not prevent the respondent-Authority from framing a scheme for regularisation of the petitioners in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions. " 24. In my view, ends of justice will be met in directing the Authority to consider the case of the petitioners Keeping in view the direction of this court reproduced hereinabove. 25. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned orders dated 6.11.1993 contained in Annexure-13 series are quashed and the respondent-Authority is directed to reinstate the petitioners and to pay them their back wages at the same rate as they had been receiving prior to the termination of their services and as and when the respondent-Authority decides to make regular appointments on Class IV posts, it shall do so after complying the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and if the petitioners apply, their cases shall also be considered in accordance with law after granting to the petitioners, if required, the relaxation in the matter of age to the extent of service rendered by them in temporary capacity. This will, however, not prevent the respondent-Authority from framing a scheme from framing a scheme for regularisations of the petitioners in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases. It is, however; clarified that it shall be open to respondent-Authority to terminate the services of the petitioners in case it is necessary according to law. Petition allowed