JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner aggrieved by notice/order dated 15.09.2008 by which respondents, while reinstating him in service pursuant to award of Labour Court dated 05.12.2005, simultaneously decided to retrench his services by invoking provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed on 01.01.1991 as Class IV employee and thereafter his services were extended from time to time and his appointment was continued till 31.12.1994. Finally his services were terminated on 01.01.1995. It is contended that petitioner was wrongly described as part time employee and that prior to termination of his services compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was not made. Learned Tribunal, by its award dated 05.12.2005, held termination of services of petitioner illegal and further held the petitioner entitled to reinstatement of service with continuity but without any back wages. Respondent no.3 Joint Director (Admn.), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, however, by order dated 06.05.2008 directed that petitioner shall be reinstated in service in same status as part time and a sum of Rs. 200/- shall be paid to him but simultaneously directed that his services may be terminated again by complying with provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act. 3. Learned counsel submitted that neither any seniority list was prepared nor compensation was paid to petitioner in terms of Section 25-F of the Act. Compliance of provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act was not made. This court therefore by interim order dated 12.11.2008 directed respondents to maintain status-quo and this is how petitioner has continued to serve respondents. 4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition and submitted that even if it is accepted that petitioner is granted continuity of service from date of his initial appointment on 01.01.1991 till his reinstatement by order dated 06.05.2008, petitioner cannot claim any immunity from provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act. It is submitted that petitioner was given one month notice by order dated 15.09.2008, therefore, it was not necessary to give notice pay. Provisions of Section 25-F, G and H have also been complied with. 5. It is submitted that petitioner was given one month notice by order dated 15.09.2008, therefore, it was not necessary to give notice pay. Provisions of Section 25-F, G and H have also been complied with. 5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record, I do not find on record either any document or any pleading in reply filed by respondents whether petitioner was paid any compensation while serving notice under Section Section 25-F, G and H dated 15.09.2008. Respondents have also failed to show whether they prepared any seniority list so as to show compliance of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act. Notice/order dated 15.09.2008 can therefore be simply construed to be notice under Section Section 25-F, G and H of the Act, but service of notice could not be said to be sufficient. It is true that respondents, if they do not require service of petitioner, have right to again invoke provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act but they have failed to show compliance of these provisions. Petitioner has continued in service for all this time even after issuance of said notice and it is not shown that those provisions have been duly complied with. Notice/order dated 15.09.2008 cannot be sustained in law. 6. In result this writ petition is allowed. Notice/order dated 15.09.2008 is set aside. Respondents, however, would be at liberty to terminate services of petitioner after making compliance of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act as per wishes of the Government contained in order dated 06.05.2008. 7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.Petition Allowed. *******