Siri Jagan. J,

This writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.13455/1998 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Labour Court. Kollam in I.D.No.42/1993, finding denial of employment by the 1st respondent-Management to the appellant-workman and directing her reinstatement in service with backwages. The facts leading to the impugned judgment are summarized hereunder.

2. The appellant-workman was alleged to be engaged by the 2nd respondent-manager of a Maveli Store of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited on daily wages from 1984 onwards, and that she had completed 5 years of continuous service. Thereafter, she was denied employment in September, 1989. She raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kollam. Which adjudicated the dispute as I.D.No.42/1993. On behalf of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, it was contended that since the Corporation is a fully owned Government Company and they can make appointments to the establishment only in accordance with the prescribed procedure, there is no employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the management as the workman was not appointed following the prescribed procedure. However, by Ext.P1 award, the Labour Court held that there was denial of employment to the appellant by the management and, therefore. She was directed to be reinstated in service with full backwages. The said award was challenged by the management on the ground that helpers can be appointed in the Maveli Store only in accordance with Helpers Service Rules. 1978 framed by the Corporation and since the Corporation is not competent to make appointments in violation of the Helpers Service Rules, 1978,even if the Manger of the concerned Maveli Store has engaged the workman on daily wages as alleged, the same cannot result in any employer-employee relationship between the management and the workman and therefore no rights as a workman accrues to the appellant-workman. This contention was accepted by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad. U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra. AIR 1994 SC 1638 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma. AIR 1996 SC 1565. Accordingly, Ext.P1 award was quashed and the original petition was allowed with costs of Rs.2000/ to be paid by the appellant-workman. This judgment is impugned in this writ appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-workman as also that of the management, namely respondents 1 and 2.

4. The main argument of the appellant’s counsel is that once the workman continues in service beyond 240 days in a calendar year, the services of such workman cannot be dispensed with except in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the I.D. Act’). According to him, even if the mode of appointment is defective, that does not in any way affect the rights of the appellant under the I.D. Act and irrespective of defect in such appointment, if any she is entitled to get her rights under the I.D. Act enforced through the machinery prescribed under the above Act, which alone has been done in this case. Therefore, Ext.P1 award is perfectly legal and valid, submits counsel. In support of his case, he relies on the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Punjab Land Devt. & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. Chandigarh & others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Chandigarh & Others, 1990 II LLJ 70. According to him in that judgment, the Supreme Court has held that going by the definition in Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. Retrenchment means termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever except those expressly excluded in the Section. He would specifically refer to the fact that in one of those cases decided in that judgment, the services of certain workmen of the management-Corporati