IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3998 of 2006 NAND KISHOR PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE AGRI.MKT.BOARD ----------- 3 06.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.3.2006 contained in Annexure – 7, by virtue of which he has been removed from service by the then respondent namely, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, from 10.3.2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a daily wager and had been engaged by the respondents in that capacity and he was working for quite a while. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes limited submission that the power exercised by the respondents contained in Annexure – 7 is in gross violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents have not followed the requirements and there is necessity for the same. He is enforced in the said argument by a decision rendered by a Division Bench way back on 2 28th July, 1982 in the case of Bir Bahadur Roy and others. Petitioner’s contention is that this order of judicial pronouncement has not undergone any change on this issue. In fact, the view has been held and reiterated subsequently also. Based on the submission made as well as the order passed by the Division Bench, the impugned order dated 10.3.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Administrator of the dissolved Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board to pass appropriate orders after verifying records and also satisfying himself to the fact whether the conditions of Section 25(F) had been followed before passing of the order contained in Annexure – 7 dated 10.3.2006. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)