JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:—The respondent was appointed as a driver in the year 1991 on daily wages by the present petitioner. His services as a driver were utilised by the petitioner on and of. The breaks were also given by the petitioner. Abruptly the termination order bearing No. 562 dated 5-6-1992 was served on the respondent by the present petitioner w.e.f. 5-6-1992. The petitioner paid Rs. 2481/- to the respondent for the period from 1-4-1992 to 5-6-1992. Besides this amount of wages, an amount of Rs. 1305/- was also paid to the respondent being the wages for one month in lieu of one months notice. The petitioner also paid Rs. 652/- to the respondent by way of compensation. Thus the petitioner issued Demand Draft to the respondent by R.P.A.D. in compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent filed complaint under section 28(1) read with Items a, b, c, d and f of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The said complaint filed by the respondent was resisted by the present petitioner. In the said proceeding, the respondent pointed out that there was infraction of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner was engaged in unfair labour practices against the respondent and consequently quashed and set aside the order of termination. The Judge of the Labour Court, Latur, further directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent within a month from the date of the order with continuity and back wages. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner filed Revision (ULP) No. 40 of 1994. The member, Industrial Court, Solapur dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of revision passed by the Member Industrial Court, Solapur, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and thereby challenged the correctness of the dismissal order. 5. Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was full compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the courts below should not have directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity and backwages. On the other hand, the learned Advocate Mr. 5. Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was full compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the courts below should not have directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity and backwages. On the other hand, the learned Advocate Mr. C.R. Deshpande, for the sole respondent forcefully argued that the petitioner did not display the seniority list of the workmen and because of non compliance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (sic (Bombay) Rules, 1987) both the courts have rightly concluded that the order of reinstatement is bad in law. 6. Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (sic (Bombay) Rules, 1987) reads as under: "Rule 81. Maintenance of Seniority list of workmen.—(1) 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 conspicuous place in the premises of the Industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment." 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not prepare the seniority list of all the workmen in a particular category for which the retrenchment is contemplated. The list of seniority was not maintained nor the copy of the same was displayed on the notice board on a conspicuous place in the premises of the Industrial establishment at least 7 days before the actual date of retrenchment. 8. This Court in (Prakash Murlidhar Dalal v. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Limited)1, 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 269 has held that the provisions of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1987 are mandatory in nature and non preparation of the seniority list of a particular category of workmen would vitiate the order of retrenchment. This Court has further held that in the absence of seniority list compliance of section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be checked and verified. There was total disregard and non compliance of Rule 81 which vitally affected the termination order dated 5-6-1992. Both the courts have rightly highlighted this substantial issue and rightly concluded that the termination order is bad in law. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits. 8. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. Both the courts have rightly highlighted this substantial issue and rightly concluded that the termination order is bad in law. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits. 8. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----