JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order or direction for quashing the Office Orders, as contained in Memo Nos. 949 and 124, both dated 26th March, 2002, 181, dated 10th April, 2002, as also 148, 916, 946, 129, 905 and 111, all dated 26th March, 2002, issued by the Administrator, Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited (in Hindi Bihar Rajya Anusuchit Jati Sah-karita Vikash Nigam Limited) Ajavini for short, whereby and whereunder, services of the petitioners have been terminated with immediate effect and it has been or-dered to observe the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The impugned orders are said to have been issued in consequence of the decision of the Council of Ministers, held in its meeting dated 17th July, 1995 and a decision taken by the Committee, headed by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Welfare, Bihar, on 24th February, 2000 and letter of Welfare Department, as contained in Memo No. 4042, dated 3rd August, 1996, wherein it was decided to wind up Engineering Cell of Ajavini with effect from 25th July, 2000. It Was further decided in the meeting dated 24th February, 2000 and resolved to terminate the services of all daily wages employees of dissolved Engineering Cell and the Administrator, Ajavini was asked to enquire into the appointments, regularisations and promotions of rest of the employees and to terminate their services, if found illegal. With respect to rest of them, decision was taken to absorb their services with the State. 2. As the case can be determined on a short question of law, it is not necessary to discuss all the aspects, except the relevant one, as set out hereunder. 3. Petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar Gupta was initially appointed on daily wages vide Memo No. 210, dated 2nd May, 1980 in the Engineering Cell of Ajavini. His services were regularized by the Managing Director, Ajavini, along with two others against Class IV post of Blue Printer-cum-Tresor vide Office Order No. 87, dated 21.9.1981. His services along with seven others was thereafter transferred in the Engineering Cell vide Memo No. 802, dated 24th April, 2000. Petitioner No. 2, Urebi Paswan was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Ajavini as a Choukidar in the Work-charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs. His services along with seven others was thereafter transferred in the Engineering Cell vide Memo No. 802, dated 24th April, 2000. Petitioner No. 2, Urebi Paswan was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Ajavini as a Choukidar in the Work-charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 155-190/-vide Office Order No. 17, dated 14th May, 1982. Petitioner No. 3, Mahendra Prasad was appointed against Class IV post of Chairman along with four others by the Managing Director, Ajavini vide Order No. 76, dated 31st December, 1980. So far as petitioner No. 4 Uma Shankar Ram is concerned, he was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell, Ajavini, Patna, as Work-charge Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs. 155-190/- vide Order No. 13, dated 12th September, 1980. His services along with nine others were regularized with effect from 12th of September, 1980 i.e. since the day of his joining by the Secretary, Ajavini, vide Office Order No. 29, dated 23rd January, 1987. Petitioner No. 5, Kishori Prasad was appointed on daily wages by the Executive Engineer to perform the duties of Clerk-cum-Typist vide Memo No. 856, dated 26th September, 1983. Subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis against the post of Clerk in the pay scale Of Rs. 580-860/- vide Memo No. 346, dated 5th August, 1985, issued by the Executive Engineer, South Bihar Division, Patna, Petitioner No. 6, Sidhnath Ram was initially appointed on daily wages basis to perform the duties of Chowkidar on 27th September, 1980. Subsequently his services were regularized by the Secretary, Ajavini, vide Memo No. 173, dated 23rd January, 1987, with effect from 27th September, 1980. Petitioner No. 7, Rajdeo Ram was appointed as Work-charge Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs. 155-190/- vide Office Order No. 20, dated 14th May, 1982, issued by the Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell, Patna. Subsequently after abolition of the Engineering Cell, he was transferred at Ranchi. Petitioner No. 8, Ram Pratap Singh was appointed as Work-charge Chowkidar in the pay sale of Rs. 250-425 vide Memo No. 243 dated 18th May, 1984, issued by the Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell, Patna. Later on he was promoted as Blue Printer vide Office Order No. 46, dated 26th December, 1985. So far as petitioner No. 9, Md. Petitioner No. 8, Ram Pratap Singh was appointed as Work-charge Chowkidar in the pay sale of Rs. 250-425 vide Memo No. 243 dated 18th May, 1984, issued by the Executive Engineer, Engineering Cell, Patna. Later on he was promoted as Blue Printer vide Office Order No. 46, dated 26th December, 1985. So far as petitioner No. 9, Md. Sahabuddin Ansari is concerned, he was initially appointed as Clerk on 4th July, 1983, for which a formal order was issued by the District Executive Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah, vide Memo No. 264, dated 20th July, 1983. Subsequently he was appointed as Work Inspector in the Work-charge establishment vide Office Order No. 6, dated 2nd April, 1984, issued by the Executive Engineer, Patna. 3. All the petitioners on their appointments; either continued to work at the places where they had joined or where transferred to different places, such as, Lohardaga, Ranchi, Sahibganj etc., which now fall within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, where they were working at the time the orders of termination were issued. 4. Counsel for the petitioners relied on one or other policy decision of the State Government (the then Government of Bihar), taken from time to time. 5. It appears that an Engineering Cell was opened in the Ajavini in pursuance of decision of the Board of Directors, taken on 5th January, 1979, keeping in view the work load of the Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar. The said Department directed the Ajavini to increase the number of staff and create more Works Division vide letter dated 30th June, 1983. The Special Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, vide order dated 3rd July, 1986, ordered that Engineering Cell will function like other Works Divisions and will be under the direct control of the Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. The Managing Director through Administrator will only monitor the works, being executed by the Engineering Cell. 6. There were different Engineering Cells in other Departments of the Government. The State Government, as such, decided to merge those Engineering Cells of other Departments with the Public Works Department of the State. In respect to Engineering Cell of Ajavini, vide Memo No. 1045, dated 15th February, 1991 the Government of Bihar decided that it will function under the direct control of the Welfare Department. 7. The State Government, as such, decided to merge those Engineering Cells of other Departments with the Public Works Department of the State. In respect to Engineering Cell of Ajavini, vide Memo No. 1045, dated 15th February, 1991 the Government of Bihar decided that it will function under the direct control of the Welfare Department. 7. According to the petitioners, by letter No. 1391, dated 27th February, 1991 the Joint Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar directed the Superintending Engineer, Ajavini, to furnish the list of employees, working in the Engineering Cell, so that steps may be taken for their joining in the Welfare Department. 8. A suit being Title Suit No. 119 of 1991 was filed by some persons, wherein, the court of the learned Special Judge-I, Patna, ordered to maintain status quo, relating to transfer of the Engineering Cell vide order dated 27th February, 1991. Subsequently, in a meeting held on 13th July, 1991 it was decided to abolish the Engineering Cell with its all sanctioned posts after the approval of the Chief Minister. However, the Chief Minister vide his note dated 24th August, 1991 ordered not to dissolve the Engineering Cell for the present. The decision was communicated vide letter No. 5674 dated 6th September, 1991. 9. The lists of sanctioned posts and employees were called for by the Secretary, Building Construction Department, on 21st August, 1993 to take steps for their absorption but in a meeting held on 17th July, 1995 at the level of the Chief Minister, it was resolved to abolish the Engineering Cell of Ajavini and not to transfer it under the Building Construction Department. In-spite of request, made by the Administrator on 26th June, 1996, for transfer of the Engineering Cell and merger of the same with the Building Construction Department and the letter of the Secretary, Welfare Department, dated 25th September, 1996, no specific order of merger of Engineering Cell with the Building Construction Department of the State was issued. The Admi- nistrator, Ajavini vide decision dated 25th July, 2000 abolished the Engineering Cell on the ground that no fund for the work is being allotted to the Engineering Cell. It was also ordered to take steps for adjustment of the employees against the sanctioned posts as per the seniority and suitability in the Government Services. The Admi- nistrator, Ajavini vide decision dated 25th July, 2000 abolished the Engineering Cell on the ground that no fund for the work is being allotted to the Engineering Cell. It was also ordered to take steps for adjustment of the employees against the sanctioned posts as per the seniority and suitability in the Government Services. Decision was also taken to terminate the services of those, who were either appointed on daily wages or were illegally appointed. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners should have been absorbed against some other posts, as has been done in the case of other regular employees. It was further submitted that the respondents should not have re-opened the question of legality and propriety of the appointments of the petitioners after about 18-22 years of appointments. 11. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there is no decision, taken by the Government of Bihar to abolish the Engineering Cell of Ajavini but merely on the basis of decision of a committee, which is not binding on the Ajavini, the Administrator, who has got no such jurisdiction, abolished the Engineering Cell vide order dated 25th July, 2000. 12. It is not necessary to look into the question, relating to legality and propriety of the petitioners appointments, who were appointed 18-22 years back, which has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not necessary to decide whether the Administrator had jurisdiction to abolish the Engineering Cell or not and whether the petitioners should have been absorbed like others in other departments of the Government or in the other wing of Ajavini or not. From the impugned orders, all dated 26th March, 2002, and the order dated 10th April, 2002, contained in Annexure 1 series, it will be evident that the Administrator, Ajavini terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from 26th March, 2002/10th April, 2002. While their services were so terminated with immediate effect, in the forwarding portion it was ordered to pay one months salary in lieu of one months notice and fifteen dayss wages for each completed year of service, as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. While their services were so terminated with immediate effect, in the forwarding portion it was ordered to pay one months salary in lieu of one months notice and fifteen dayss wages for each completed year of service, as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that the respondents have not given any amount except the notice pay of month and compensation equivalent to 15 days wages of one year and the compensation equivalent to fifteen days of wages for each year of completed service has not been provided to them. As such, the orders of termination dated 26th March, 2002/10th April, 2002 have been issued in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The aforesaid fact that the compensation amount of fifteen days wages for each completed year of service have not been paid to the petitioners, has not been disputed by the respondents. In the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan bass, (1984) 1 SCC 509 , the Supreme Court held that in absence of compliance with pre-requisites of Section 25F, the retrenchment bringing about the termination would be ab initio void. It has also not been disputed by the respondents that the principles of Last come first go, as stipulated under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not been followed by them. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders of termination, all dated 26th March. 2002 and 10th April, 2002, as contained in Annexure 1 series to this writ application, being violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are hereby set aside, so far they relate to the petitioners. The petitioners, accordingly, stand reinstated in the services of the respondents but with 50% of the wages for the intervening period. 15. It will be open to the respondents to pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law but before doing so, they will take into consideration the fact that the petitioners have completed about 18-22 years of their services under the respondents and thereby instead of terminating their services, whether they can be adjusted/absorbed against any other equivalent posts or not. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.