ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) IN the present appeal challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. In the Letters patent Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

( 3 ) CLAIM was made by the respondents to the effect that their services were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'act' ). It was their case that they were employed on regular basis and, therefore, the termination of service is illegal. In the claim petition they had averred that they were working since 1991 and had worked continuously till there was termination of service by an oral order on 16. 5. 1994. Appellant took the stand that the respondents were engaged as daily rated helpers. Their appointments were not in terms of the recruitment rules and workers were called for rendering services as and when required. It was therefore said that the claim regarding continuance of service was mis-conceived