terminated by oral order dated 01.07.1996 without giving one month notice or salary to him. Counsel submits that the labour Court has rejected his claim by holding that the petitioner was working under the plantation scheme and after completion of said scheme, the services of the petitioner were discontinued. Counsel submits that the labour Court was of the view that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), hence the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 are not applicable. Counsel submits that once the fact was established on record that petitioner has actually worked with the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the respondents were supposed to continue the service of the petitioner in respective of the fact that he was working under the scheme. Counsel submits that before taking any coercive action against the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to issue a notice but without issuing such notice, automatic termination order has been passed against the petitioner. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chhotu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1992 (2) RLW (Raj.) 400. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the workman and submitted that the workman was engaged as a daily wager for a particular period of time under plantation scheme and after completion of said scheme i.e. on 31.03.1996 the services of the
