IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 8633 of 2008. Decided on September 22, 2011. Balbir Singh & Others …Petitioners. Versus Municipal Corporation & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners in this case are aggrieved by the action of respondents, dispensing with their services, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Case of the petitioners is that they had worked as daily wagers with the respondents, for more than 240 days up to 10.7.2002, when their services were dispensed with, without service of any notice or payment of compensation, equivalent to one month’s salary, as per requirement of Section 25-F. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal p apers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 2. Respondents, in their reply, have denied that the petitioners had worked for 240 days uninterruptedly up to 10.7.2002, when their services were dis-continued. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Man-days Chart, Annexure R-1/A, submitted by the respondents themselves with their reply, shows that though not all, but four of the petitioners namely, Balbir Singh, Hans Raj, Dammar Kumari and Meena Kumari, had worked for more than 240 days, during 12 calendar months, preceding the date of their retrenchment. Admittedly, the aforesaid petitioners had not been served any notice, as per requirement of clause (a) of Section 25-F, nor had they been paid compensation, in terms of clause (b) of Section 25-F. Therefore, their retrenchment is illegal. 5. Consequently, retrenchment of the aforesaid four petitioners is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to treat them as continuing in service, as daily waged beldars, from the date of their retrenchment, i.e. 10.7.2002 onwards and to give them the benefit of seniority, for the purpose of regularization, as and when due and also for other service benefits, like retiral benefits, except the wages. Since retrenchment of the aforesaid four petitioners was in violation of Section 25-F, respondents are directed to pay to the aforesaid four petitioners compensation @ `50,000/- each. They shall be - 3 - paid wages at the prescribed rate, from the date of this order onwards. Petition disposed of. September 22, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.