Kailash Gambhir, J. (Oral)-By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Tribunal. The principle contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 2(OO)(bb) is applicable in the facts of the case and, therefore, no protection was required to be given to the respondent-workman as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Another contention which has been raised by the petitioner is that there was no regular post against which the respondent-workman was appointed and. therefore the order directing reinstatement of the respondent is bad in law. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Tribunal has wrongly directed the regularization of the respondent. Since no regular vacancy was there, no regularization of the respondent could have been directed. On the other hand. Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent was a daily rated employee and admittedly the petitioner before terminating the service of respondent-workman had not taken recourse to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Benc