JUDGMENT 1. :- This appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been allowed with the relief of reinstatement to the workman with all consequential benefits except back wages. It has also been left open for the respondent workman to apply under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the back wages with liberty to the present appellants i.e. respondents in the writ petition to raise the plea that the workman was in gainful employment. 2. The respondent workman had come with the case that he had been engaged on Muster Roll in the year 1962 in the Command Area Development, Chambal, Kota and was later on declared semi permanent and subsequently he was retrenched in the year 1969 but was again engaged as a daily wager, was again declared semi permanent vide order dated 20.9.1982. The services of the employees of the Command Area Development were regulated by the provisions of the various sets of the rules including the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1%4. The services of the workman were terminated on 29.5.1983 and the same was challenged before the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Single Judge decided the controversy that the activity of Irrigation Department of the Government falls within the definition of the term 'industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and we do not find any reason to disagree with this finding. On the merits of the controversy, the learned Single Judge has found that in the order dated 16.4.1983 with regard to the sanction of the Governor for abolition of the posts, the post of Mistry had not been specified and consequently, it was not open for the respondents to treat the persons holding the post of Mistries as surplus to the requirement of establishment anti as such there was no occasion for the termination of the workman vide order dated 29.5.1983. The learned Single Judge also considered as to whether it was a case of retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. The learned Single Judge also considered as to whether it was a case of retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. After considering the law on the point, the learned Single Judge found that it was a case of retrenchment and yet the workman was neither paid nor offered the retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further that one month's notice as required by Rule 26 of 1964 Rules was not at all sufficient to give effect a valid retrenchment and therefore the mere compliance of such rules of 1964 enacted under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India was not enough for valid retrenchment. There is no material whatsoever on record to controvert the basic facts on which the learned Single Judge has based his judgment. We therefore do not find any force in this appeal and no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge. 4. It is submitted by Shri A.K. Bhargava that the operation of this order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.5.1992 was stayed by the Division Bench on 16.11.1993 and the same was later on confirmed on 15.12.1995 and therefore the workman did not get even the relief of reinstatement as was granted by the learned Single Judge. 5. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and while dismissing the appeal, we observe that the appellant shall now give effect to the order of the learned Single Judge at the earliest but in no case later than two months from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to the concerned authorities or becomes available to them and the interim order as was passed on 16.11.1993 and confirmed on 15.12.1995 ceases to be operative forthwith. Parties shall bear their own costs.spl. appeal dismissed. *******