ORDER :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a daily wager has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned oral termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2001 as illegal and further be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to regularise the service of the petitioner, for his having rendered more than 6 years of service and being a Scheduled Caste candidate.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post of Peon, as if the impugned oral termination order is never passed and to pay the petitioner his salary and wages regularly, as the petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste person and possessing requisite qualification and having rendered 6 years of continuous service, can earn his livelihood.

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

(D) Be pleased to award exemplary costs to the petitioner recoverable from the respondent.”

2. This writ-application was heard and allowed on 11th November 2011 by a learned Single Judge. The order reads as under :

“1. This Court has passed an order dismissing this petition on 8th July 2011. It was brought to the notice of this Court that two judgments delivered by the Apex Court, directly applicable to the facts of the present petition, though were pressed into service were not considered which were directly applied to the facts of the present case and therefore, it was urged that the earlier order passed by this Court requires reconsideration.

2. On having heard both the sides and on having considered the request made in this regard, the earlier order passed dated 7th July 2011 requires to be recalled.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked as a Daily wager and has only worked in different departments from the year 1995 till the year 2001. In the affidavit in reply also the facts get culled out. Different officers had engaged the petitioner by giving break intermittently from the years 1995 to 1999 and from the year 2000 January, till the date of his termination. It has been emphatically pointed out by the learned advocate that in the pleadings, this aspect has been emphatically brought on record and the same has not been denied. On the contrary, in the affidavit-in-reply there is no dispute with regard to petitioner having served the respondent continuously for more than 240 days gets reflected.

4. Although, the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi & Ors., reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, has not endorsed to the employment without following the regular process of recruitment till the later judgment sought to be relied upon. Even while dealing with the case of the judgments in the case of Umadevi (supra) in the case of those employees who have completed 240 days prior to the date of termination and if such termination of service is done by the employer or by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of one month's notice, or paying in lieu thereof the compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same would render against the employer as nullity. It is also further mentioned that in the case of public employment although the ratio laid down in the case of Umadevi (supra) still holds the field and yet it is incumbent upon the employer to comply with the requirements of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Apex Court in the case of Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), reported in [(2010)5 SCC 497) in para 25 has held as under :

“The judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and other decisions in which this Court considered