Honble SHETHNA, J.–It is a very sorry state of affairs that in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent State and its officers, the matter is going by default. It is the public exchequre which suffers because of such lethargic attitude of the respondents and their counsel. (2). The petitioner who is a poor casual labourer to approach this Court by way of this Writ Petition. He was employed as casual labourer from 1.1.90 and continuously worked upto 30.4.91 without any break in service. Thus, he completed more than 240 days in service and became entitled for the protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. His services were earlier terminated by an oral order passed by the respondent No. 3 without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In conciliation proceedings, the respondents agreed to take him back in service and he was taken back in service on 27.1.92 during the pendency of the proceedings. The conciliation proceedings were finally terminated by way of a compromise on 24.2.92 (Anx. 1). This poor petitioner was once again terminated from the service unceremoniously by an oral order from 12.5.92 by the respondent No. 2. This time, instead of raising the Industrial Dispute and going before the Conciliation Officer, and getting the matter decided by the Labour Court, he approached this Court by way of this writ petition. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would not have entertained the petition of a person who has directly approached this Court when he had an alternative efficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court, but this is a case where the Court has to exercise its powers, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him before the Labour Court. (3). On 25.1.93 this Court issued notice and made it returnable within two weeks. Though the respondents were duly served but no one remained present, therefore, on 25.11.93 this Court admitted the matter and issued fresh notice. On 17.1.94, learned counsel for the respondents accepted the notice but no reply was filed. On 20.5.97 when the matter was placed before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that without reply affidavit, this petition be heard as the petitio- ner was out of job since long. On 17.1.94, learned counsel for the respondents accepted the notice but no reply was filed. On 20.5.97 when the matter was placed before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that without reply affidavit, this petition be heard as the petitio- ner was out of job since long. However, on a request being made by the learned counsel for the respondents, six weeks time was given to file reply affidavit. It is unfortunate that inspite of so much indulgence shown to the respondents, the respondents have taken the matter very lightly. It was not proper on their part not to file a reply affidavit after requesting the Court to grant time for filing reply affidavit. (4). Today, the situation is still worse and miserable as no one bothers for the respondents to remain present. The fact that in earlier conciliation proceedings the respondent agreed to take back the petitioner in to service, is sufficient to hold that the petitioner had completed 240 working days and he was entitled for the protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, his second verbal termination order passed on 12.5.92 must be held to be bad and illegal. (5). The petitioner has filed this petition on oath. The averments made in the petition remain uncontroverted and the same has to be accepted. (6). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the oral termination order dated 12.5.92, passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respon- dents are directed to take back the petitioner in service forthwith and to grant all benefits of service, including the full back wages within three months from today. The respondents shall also pay a special cost of Rs. 10,000/- and that is to be paid by respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sirohi, who has terminated the services of the petitioner by an oral order dated 12.5.92. The respon- dent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan shall pay the special cost of the Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within three months from today and it shall recover the same from the respondent No. 2 from his salary. The respon- dent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan shall pay the special cost of the Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within three months from today and it shall recover the same from the respondent No. 2 from his salary. The State of Rajasthan shall also take appropriate proceedings against respondent No. 2 and 3 for not filing the reply affidavit in this case and allowing this matter to go by default, though on several occasions the time was granted to them to file reply. (7). The Registry is directed to forward the copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, forthwith, to take proper action in the matter. (8). As soon as the dictation of the order was over, learned counsel Mr. Basti Chand Bhansali, a Panel Lawyer, came and stated that he had already sent the reply affidavit to the respondents but they have not responded at all. This is still worse. Hope that this matter may be viewed seriously by the concerning authorities of the State.