JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties, 2. The petitioner an employee, Department of Animal Husbandry, challenged the award dated 31st August, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7/98 whereby he has answered the reference in favour of the concerned respondents workmen. 3. It appears that by notification dated 12.9.1998 the Labour Employees and Training Department, Govt. of Bihar referred the following dispute for adjudication. "Whether the termination from service of Shrab Sri Jameel Akhtar, Jayarat Ansari, Md. Asgar and Md. Shafique employed as casual labour from 12.2.1991 to 31.7.1996 is justified. If not, what relief they are entitled to?" 4. The case of the concerned workmen is that on 31.1.1991 they applied to the Management for their employment in the Pig Breeding Farm. Their application were considered favourably and they were appointed verbally as casual labour on daily rate basis w.e.f. 12.2.1991. They were engaged as Watchman and they served in that capacity till 31.7.1996. There was no break in their service and they work continuously for more than five years. They were paid Rs. 30.50 paise as daily wages. It was asserted that they were entitle to be treated as permanent workers as the job was regular in nature. But by order dated 20.7.1993 the management issued direction to all the head of the concerned departments to terminate the services of the employees, appointed on daily wages basis after 1.8.1985. This order was issued in terms of resolution dated 18.6.1993 of the Department of Personnel Administration Reform, Government of Bihar. The said order was challenged before the Patna High Court by one Akhil Jharkhand Karamchari Sangh in CWJC No. 2776/93(R). By order dated 10.9.1996 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State of Bihar as well as the Dept. of Animal Husbandry to consider the individual claim of the daily wages employee whose services have either been terminated or due to be terminated provided individual representation are filed by the aggrieved employees within two months. This Court further directed that the representation should be disposed of within three months. Further case of the concerned workmen is that they submitted representation for regularization of their services but the management did not consider their representation and ultimately terminated them from service w.e.f. 1.8.1996. This Court further directed that the representation should be disposed of within three months. Further case of the concerned workmen is that they submitted representation for regularization of their services but the management did not consider their representation and ultimately terminated them from service w.e.f. 1.8.1996. According to the concerned workmen since the termination was illegal and void and in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, they raised a dispute with the management and ultimately the dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication. 5. The case of the management on the other hand is that the Pig Breeding Farm where the concerned workmen were working as casual worker under the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the said Act. No systematic activity is carried by the corporation for the employment of the workmen or supply, production and distribution of goods or service. Further case of the management was that by the resolution aforesaid the Government decided to terminate the service of the daily wages employee who were appointed after 1.8.1985. So far concerned workmen are concerned the case of the management is that they were engaged without any advertisement and without any interview. No appointments letters were given to them. In view of the resolution dated 18.6.1993 all the casual workers appointed after 1.8.1985 were disengages and asked not to work. 6. The Labour Court firstly held that Pig Breeding Farm under the Animal Husbandry Department is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the said Act. The Labour Court then recorded a finding that the concerned workmen continuously worked for more than 240 days and as such it was imperative for the management to serve them one months notice or one months wages in lieu of notice and compensation as envisaged under Section 25F of the said Act. Since the management did not comply the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act and termination was bad in law. On these ground the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the concerned workmen. 7. Mr. Since the management did not comply the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act and termination was bad in law. On these ground the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the concerned workmen. 7. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that admittedly the concerned workmen were engaged verbally on daily wages without any advertisement, interview or appointment letters and not against any sanctioned posts the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act shall have no application and disengagement of those daily wages worker will not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25F of the said Act. In this connection learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of State of Bihar v. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi, 1997 (2) PLJR 38 (SC). I find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. It is admitted case of the concerned workmen that they were appointed verbally as casual labour on daily rate basis w.e.f. 12.2.1991 and the management stopped taking work from them from 31.7.1996. 8. In the case of State of Bihar v. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (supra) the Supreme Court considering exactly a similar case held as under. "The admitted position is that petitioner I came to be appointed as Assistant, Petitioner 2 as Driver and Petitioners 3 to 5 as peons on different dates viz. on 1.8.1988, 10.11.1989, 31.5.1987 and 22.4.1992. They were appointed in the Co-operative Training Institute, Deoghar by its Principal. They are admittedly daily wages employees. Their services came to be terminated by the Principal. Calling that termination in question, they filed a writ petition in the High Court. The main grievance of the petitioners before us is that termination of their services is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The question for consideration therefore is. Whether the petitioners can be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to the extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to the extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment" therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary." 9. Besides the above admittedly the concerned workmen firstly approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the decision of the Government to terminate all the daily wages employees engaged after 1.8.1985. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Government including the management to consider the individual representation that may be filed by daily wages employees including the concerned workmen. Admittedly the con-cerned workmen filed their representation which was ultimately rejected by the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government. The concerned workmen thereafter claimed themselves to be the workmen of an industry and raised a demand and got the dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. In my opinion also in the facts and circumstances of the case the daily wages employees engaged by the department of the Government cannot claim their disengagement as illegal on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act. Learned counsel also drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2003. From the judgment it appears that in the same Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar various clerical and semi technical posts were filled up by making appointments. Subsequently the State Government considered the appointment of those persons to be irregular and terminate their services. The order of termination was challenged before the Patna High Court. From the judgment it appears that in the same Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar various clerical and semi technical posts were filled up by making appointments. Subsequently the State Government considered the appointment of those persons to be irregular and terminate their services. The order of termination was challenged before the Patna High Court. The Court held that since the appointments was on ad hoc basis and appointments was made by Regional Directors who was not empowered to make appointment, appropriate direction was issued to fill up those posts on regular basis by giving appropriate age relaxation to those employees. The matter ultimately went to Supreme Court and the Civil Appeal was disposed of with certain direction to the Government of Jharkhand for constitution of selection committee and for considering the cases of those employees also whose services were terminated. 10. In the instant case as noticed above in view of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court the concerned workmen cannot get the benefit of Section 25F of the said Act. The impugned award, therefore, cannot sustain in law. However the concerned workmen must get the benefit of age relaxation and weightage of their past experience as and when appointments in the Department of the petitioner are made. Needless to say that if the post in the department of the management are lying vacant the same shall be filled up expeditiously and the cases of the concerned workmen shall be considered as indicated hereinabove. 11. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the Impugned award is set aside with the aforesaid direction and ob servation.