Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in I.D.No156 of 1993 on the file of Labour court, Cuddalore dated 112. 1997 and to set aside the same. 2. Heard the arguments of Ms.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocate; Mr.S. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The 1st respondent-workman was admittedly employed on daily wages with effect from 212. 1989 and subsequently on the ground that he did not come to work, his name was removed from the rolls. He raised an industrial dispute under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer and finally the Labour Court at Cuddalore took up the matter on file as I.D.No.156/93. 4. On the side of the workman, 12 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.1 to 12 and on the side of the management, 6 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M.1 to M6. While the workman had examined himself as W.W.1, one Sri Kumaran was examined as M.W.1 by the petitioner. 5. Before the Labour Court and also before this Court, the petitioner Department raised three objections. The first one was that the Farm run under the control of the petitioner is not falling within the definition of 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act (In short I.D. Act). This was on the ground that the farm is run by the Government and it is an adjunct to Animal Husbandary Department and since it is not running any industrial activity, Industrial Disputes Act will not apply. This contention overlooks the judgment rendered by a bench of 7 Judges of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, etc vs A Rajappa and Ors ( 1978 (2) SCC 213 ). In that Judgment, the Supreme Court has held that any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between the employer and the workman for production or supply or distribution of goods or with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes, can be covered by the term "Industry" as provided under Sec.25(J)of I.D. Act. Hence the first contention must fail. 6. In that Judgment, the Supreme Court has held that any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between the employer and the workman for production or supply or distribution of goods or with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes, can be covered by the term "Industry" as provided under Sec.25(J)of I.D. Act. Hence the first contention must fail. 6. Thereafter, the second objection was that the first respondent being a Daily Wage worker and that he had not worked beyond 240 days in a year, he is not eligible to be protected. However, before the Labour Court, the witness examined on the side of the petitioner Management, in his deposition, had admitted that though there was a break in the service of the workman in each year, he had rendered service more than 240 days in each year and this has been recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph-9 of the Impugned Award. 7. The third objection was that the workman stopped on his own. The Labour Court also recorded that there was no evidence before the Court and the Management did not even produce any such transfer order before the labour Court. 8. The Labour Court held that once the workman had worked for more than a period of six years and in each year he worked for more than 240 days, and if the workman was removed, that would amount to retrenchment and also the order passed against the workman removing his name would amount to retrenchment. Therefore, the workman is entitled to be reinstated with all benefits. 9. The Honble Supreme Court in almost an identical circumstances vide its decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111 (State Bank of India vs Sundramoney) held that the infraction of Sec.25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act will enable the workman to get restored to service. If there is no positive action on the part of the employer to grant compensation and notice pay which was held to be condition precedent under Sec.25 (F) of I.D. Act, the resultant termination will be void ab initio. 10. The writ petition is therefore misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs. 11. By the interim order dated 23. If there is no positive action on the part of the employer to grant compensation and notice pay which was held to be condition precedent under Sec.25 (F) of I.D. Act, the resultant termination will be void ab initio. 10. The writ petition is therefore misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs. 11. By the interim order dated 23. 1999 in W.M.PNo.25541/1998 this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/-to the credit of I.D.No.156 of 1993 with a further direction to the Labour Court to deposit the same in a Fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and renewable once in two years thereafter, with the Indian Overseas Bank, Esplanade Branch, Madras and the workman was permitted to withdraw the quarterly interest accrued on such fixed deposit. It is also directed that the petitioner Management was bound to pay the payment under Sec.17-B of I.D.Act. 12. The learned Government Advocate is unable to confirm whether they had complied with the interim orders of this Court. Since the writ petition is dismissed, the first respondent is entitled to get the amount withdrawn from the Indian Overseas Bank, Esplanade Branch, Madras, if it is lying in deposit to the credit of I.D.No.156 of 1993.