F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

The above writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 418 of 1993, dated June 30, 1994, directing the reinstatement of the second respondent with all back wages and continuity of service.

The brief facts of the case are,

The second respondent claimed that he was employed in the petitioner's society as a weigher, on the first instance on and from August 5, 1987, and thereafter, he worked as a salesman from June 27, 1989 on a monthly salary of Rs. 225. According to the second respondent, he along with certain other employees were engaged on daily basis on a deposit of Rs. 500 by way of security deposit, that, they were given frequent breaks in service, that after the new set of office-bearers of petitioner's society, the petitioner was denied employment on and from January 20, 1991, while another person by name L. Rathinaraj Sargunam was appointed in his place. It was also claimed at certain other employees were allowed to continue in service, who were also subsequently made permanent.

On February 20, 1991, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, which came up for consideration before the first respondent in I.D. No. 418 of 1991 along with the claim petition in C.D. No. 89 of 1992 preferred by the second respondent. The petitioner resisted the claim of the second respondent by contending that the engagement of the second respondent was contrary to the rules relating to the service conditions of its employees, that the regular employees of the petitioners are recruited only through Employment Exchange, that the second respondent was not recruited through Employment Exchange, that the service was not continuous and in the circumstances Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was also not attractedBy a common award, dated June 30, 1994, the first respondent while dismissing the claim made by the second respondent in C.P. No. 89 of 1992, granted the relief of the claim reinstatement with back wages, etc., in I.D. No. 418 of 1991. The first respondent held that having regard to the fact that certain other persons who were stated to have been Junior to the second respondent having continued in service, the cessation of employment of the second respondent was contrary to law and therefore, the same was not justified. With that view, the first respondent granted the relief of reinstatement with back wages.

Aggrieved against the said award, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the employment of the second respondent was admittedly not through the Employment Exchange, the said engagement cannot be construed as one in accordance with law and consequently, there being no valid appointment of the second respondent into the services of the petitioner, there was no question of complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, so as to hold that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified.

The learned counsel relied upon Koodaranji Service Co-operative Bank v. M. M. Lissy and Ors. 1994-II-LLJ-97 a Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court, Dinubhai Revabhai Vankar v. President, Talod Nagar Panchayat 1998 (3) GLR 2193, a single Judge judgment of the Gujarat High Court and A. Senthilkumar v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2000 (4) CTC 485 (Mad) a judgment of his Lordship Justice Sri DINAKARAN, in support of his submissions.

As against the abovesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the second respondent Smt. Rajani Ramadoss relied upon yet another Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in Sri Rangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. (1) Labour Court, Madurai, (2) K. Nagarajan 1996-II-LLJ-216 (Mad-DB) and Steel Authority of India, Ltd. v. Kumari Vandana Singh and Another 1992-I-LLJ-64 (MP-DB) and contended that irrespective of the fact as to whether the second respondent was employed through the Employment Ex