R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

What is impugned is the order of the Labour Court by which the Labour Court declined to grant the relief of reinstatement to the petitioners, who had worked as call boys, which is an unskilled work in the respondent co-operative society, though it was found that they have worked for 480 days intermittently, on the ground that appointments so made, had been made contrary to the requirements of Section 119-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the finding that work had been performed for 480 days, the petitioners were entitled to the relief of reinstatement and continuity in service and the Labour Court award to the extent it denies that relief is contrary to law.

Counsel relied upon two judgments tendered by two learned single Judges of this Court. In the case of M. Irudhayanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (3) LLN 544, the Court found that the relief that had been sought by the petitioners was to direct the milk producers union to regularise the workmen and such a direction was required to be given as the workmen had worked for the period specified in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. It was also observed there that the existence of a vacancy was not relevant for the purpose of compelling the Government to give such a direction. It the case reported in Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd. v. Inspector of Labour 2000 (1) LLN 799, the parties to the proceedings were Government Corporation and the Inspector of Labour. It was held herein that the workmen who had put in 480 days in preceding 24 calendar months were automatically entitled to conferment of permanent status. The Court, however, did not issue any direction to the authority, but asked the petitioners to approach the authorities under the act.Both these cases dealt with a situation in which initial appointments were not made contrary to law governing the body which made the appointment.

Counsel for the respondent referred to the decision rendered by an yet another single Judge of this Court in A. Senthil Kumar v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies 2001 (1) LLN 538, wherein it was held that the appointments made contrary to rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules would be illegal appointments and that no opportunity was required to be given before effecting termination of such appointees. Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Koodaranji Service Co-operative Bank v. M.M. Lissy and Others, 1994-II-LLJ-97 (Ker), wherein it was held, as set out in the head-note, that appointments made contrary to the rules do not entitle such appointees to claim a right to be retained in service and that the termination of such employees cannot be regarded as retrenchment. While so holding the Court referred to and relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Bangalore Woolen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company, Ltd. v. Bangalore Woolen, Cotton and Silk Mills, Company 1962-I-LLJ-213 wherein it was observed thus at page 216 :

"It seems to us that service cannot be said to be terminated unless it was capable of being continued."

The Labour Court here has found that the respondent-bank, its executive committee and its employees all belong to the same group and that the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act had found that the employment of the petitioners were contrary to the rules as the petitioners had not been recruited through the Employment Exchange, and that when the matter was heard by the Labour Court there were no vacancies in the respondent-society.Respondent is a Co-operative Society governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made thereunder. It has no option but to conform to the requirements of the statutory provisions or the rules. By acting contr