Judgment :

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order dated 16th February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 1117 of 2009 (O & M). By the impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge with following observation:

"...several judgments have been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that reinstatement of a workman to a public post could not be allowed if the workman has not been recruited after following the mandatory requirement of Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution. The said judgment of learned Single, given in the year 1996, which is in conflict with above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be followed."

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

"The Appellant was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the Respondent-Haryana Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), which is an 'Industry' within, the meaning of Section 2(j)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appellant had completed more than 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year but his services were terminated with effect from 1st July, 1988 without one month's prior notice or pay in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

3. On a reference, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak by the Award dated 11th August, 1993 in Reference No. 480/89 held that the termination of services of the Appellant-workman was not justified and he is liable to be reinstated with full back wages. The said order was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15094 of 1993. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the order dated 26th March, 2009 held that the appointment of the workman was made in violation of Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement, but allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the workman. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation. The 'employer' of an industry cannot escape from the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on a non-est ground that the initial appointment was illegal. On the other hand, according to the Respondent those who got appointed through back door means are not entitled for reinstatement.

5. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation enacted with an object for settlement of industrial disputes and for a certain other purpose. Section 2(ka) of the said Act defines industrial establishment or undertaking.

6. In the matter of appointment in the services of the 'State', including a public establishment or undertaking, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are attracted. However, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are not attracted in the matter of appointment in a private establishment or undertaking.

7. The issue that is to be determined herein is whether the validity of initial appointment of a workman can be questioned in a case in which Court/Tribunal has to determine whether the termination of service of the workman which comes within the meaning of "retrenchment", is violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Section 2(oo) defines 'Retrenchment' which is as follows:

"Section 2(oo) "retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains