JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that petitioner, Subhash Chander and others were employed as Canal Patwari on work charge basis on February 15, 1988. Their initial appointment was upto March 31, 1988, and it was extended from time to time and the last extension was to expire on September 29, 1988. This extended period was to expire on March 31, 1989. However, before the expiry of the period stipulated in the last extension order, they were asked to quit by order, dated November 29, 1988, a copy of which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-3. The admitted facts further reveal that while showing them the exit door, they were not given any notice, nor any compensation was given, and merely 10 days’ notice was given to them. It is again admitted position that Irrigation Department is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the petitioners are workmen. For non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, the impugned order was to be invalidated and is accordingly held invalid. It is true that the petitioners could seek reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act but the case remained admitted and lying in this Court from 1988 till date. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Phul Rali v. Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, 1986 PLJ 323 it would be too inequitous to relegate the petitioners to the Labour Court at this stage.
2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. In as much as the petitioners on the date of interim orders passed by this Court are holding on to the posts, no occasion arises to grant them any other relief.