Aftab Alam, J.

1. The petitioner at the material time was a workman working in the Public Works Department, Bulling Circle, Purnia. In this application he challenges an award, dated February 28, 1989 given by the Labour Court, Patna, in reference No. 1 of 1985/11 of 1987. The reference arose out of an industrial dispute relating to the termination of the petitioners service and the terms of the reference was as follows:

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Treasure Guard, Public Works Department, Building Circle, Purnia, by the management from December 15, 1992 is proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief?"

2. The parties appeared before the Labour Court and filed their respective writtten statements.

3. The case of the workman-petitioner was that he was initially appointed on- muster roll as a daily wager. He continuously worked for over three months and thereafter he was appointed in a regular time-sclae of pay as Treasure Guard on a temporary and ad hoc basis. The Workman joined the post of Treasure Guard and discharged his duties to the complete satisfaction of the authority. But on August 26, 1992 he was asked to file a show cause why his appointment may not be terminated because it was made in breach of the Government circulars. The workman gave his reply which did not find favour with the authorities and finally his services were terminated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman it was asserted in no uncertain terms that before terminating his service he was not given one months pay in lieu one months notice nor was he given any retrenchment compensation. In other words a case was made out that the termination of his service was bad and non est for not complying with the con-ditons precedent as mandated under Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the management it appears that not much heed was paid to the petitioners grievance regarding violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act. The management appears to have trained all its efforts to contend that the petitioners initial appointment/engagement was illegal and invalid and did not confer any right upon him and, hence, it could be terminated without a months notice or payment in lieu of notice and without paying the retrenchment compensation. The management appears to have gone to the extent of taking a stand that the initial appointment being illegal, the provisions of Sec. 25-F did not have any application in this case.

5. The Labour Court in the impugned award appears to have uphled the managements contention. It has recorded a finding that the petitioners appointment was illegal and invalid. This finding is based on the circumstances that the appointment was made without any advertisement or any selection process. Further there as no sanctioned post against which the appointment could be made. The Labour Court has also noted that the appointment was made by the Executive Engineer in violation of the general bar imposed by the Government against any appointments either on the muster roll or otherwise. This finding of the Labour Court appears to be unexceptionable but where the Labour Court appears to have committed a serious error of law is proceeding on the assumption that the initial appointment being illegal and invalid, the provisions of Sec. 23-F were not applicable. Such an assumption is clearly unwarranted and unsustainable in the eye of law. The Labour Court has relied upon three decisons of this Court for holding that in a case where the initial appointment itself was illegal and invalid it the employee could not raise a plea of contravention of Sec. 25-F of the Act. The first decision relied by the Labour Court is reported in 1983 LIC 1984. It is a Full Bench decision of this Court but this decision never considered the provision of Sec. 25 F of the Act. The ratio of this decision is si