JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. The State of Jharkhand on behalf of Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa, has filed this writ petition praying for setting aside the award dated 26 th August, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in Reference Case No. 2 of 1998. 3. By Notification dated 28.3.1998, issued by the State Government, the following dispute was referred for adjudication. Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Pranay Kumar Srivastava, Gopal Jha, Kaushal Chandra Jha and Raj Bali Pal-daily rated workmen of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jamshedpur is Justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to? 4. The Labour Court held that petitioner is an Industry and there has been violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (The I.D. Act for short) and therefore termination of the respondents was unjustified. It directed their reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits with continuity of the service. 5. The case of respondent No. 1-Pranay Kumar Srivastava is that he worked as daily wage employee between 1.4.1981 to 7.12.1996. Respondent No. 2-Gopal Jha worked as daily wage employee between 1.11.1982 to 7.12.1996 and respondent No. 3-Rajbali Pal worked as daily wage employee between 1.11.1978 to 7.12.1996 but they were disengaged without any notice on the ground of indiscipline. However, the stigma of indiscipline was withdrawn under order dated 7.1.1997 in the writ petition filed by the respondents being C.W.J.C. No. 4095 of 1996 (R). Their further case was that their services were dispensed with without following the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 6. The case of the petitioner is that it is not an Industry and Section 25F is not applicable to the daily wages employees. In support of such contention, Mr. Gadodia, appearing for the petitioner, relied on the judgment reported in 1997 (2) PLJR (SC) 38 State of Bihar and Ors. v. Himanshu Kumar Vidyar. Which reads as follows: 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. v. Himanshu Kumar Vidyar. Which reads as follows: 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 mere 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. 7. He further relied on the judgment Management of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department. Ranchi v. Jamil Akhtar and Ors. 8. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the respondents, could not dispute the said legal position. However, he submitted that respondents have applied against an advertisement issued by the Minor Irrigation Department for filling up the vacancies of several posts in the Minor Irrigation Department from daily wages employee appointed before 1.8.1985 and the selection process has not been completed. He submitted that while considering the case of respondents, the benefit of age relaxation and wattage of their past experience may be given. 9. Mr. Gadodia submitted that he is not in a position to say whether selection process is completed or not but if the same is not completed and the respondents have duly applied against the said advertisement, their case will naturally be considered along with other daily wages employees and no preference can be given to the respondents only because the said award was passed. 10. Apparently, the award is against the said judgments relied by Mr. Gadodia and accordingly the same is set aside. 10. Apparently, the award is against the said judgments relied by Mr. Gadodia and accordingly the same is set aside. It goes without saying that if the respondents have applied against the advertisement issued by the department and if they were found otherwise eligible and the selection process has not been completed as yet, this order, setting aside the award, will not stand in the way of the department in considering their case along with the cases of other daily wages employees. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.