Judgement

G. K. MISRA, C.J. :- The petitioner was appointed as a Telephone operator under the Government of Orissa in the Hirakud Dam Project on 1-4-60. A notice was issued on 30-4-63 intimating the petitioner that his services would be terminated after one month from the date of service of the notice. The notice was styled as "Retrenchment Notice". Against the order retrenching him, the petitioner filed an appeal before the concerned Chief Engineer. As he got no response, he filed the writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on 21-6-65.

2. The only point raised by Mr. Rath is that the Hirakud Dam Project is an industry and that the petitioner is a workman and as such he was entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The section not having been complied with, the order of retrenchment is void and without jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Das, the learned Standing Counsel rightly does not dispute that the Hirakud Dam Project is an industry and that the petitioner is a workman. That such a project would come within the definition of 'industry' and the petitioner would come within the definition of 'workman' even if he was a telephone ope