Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The writ petition arises out of Labour Court award dated 12.4.2007 published on 5.7.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court - I, U.P., Kanpur.

3. By means of the impugned award, respondent No. 2 has been reinstated with back-wages on the ground that the dispensation of his services is in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 was a daily-wage (muster roll) employee with the petitioner corporation. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2000-2001, certain projects of construction were allotted to the petitioner Corporation. In order to meet the requirements of staff, the Corporation proceeded to engage some persons on the muster roll. Respondent No. 2 was engaged on payment of Rs. 98/- per day in the month of June, 2001 and he has worked up to December, 2001. Total period of working of respondent No. 2 workman was 127 days. The respondent No. 2 was engaged at the time when work of the project had commenced, however, he was disengaged, thereafter.

4. The contention is that respondent No. 2 was engaged for a particular project at Karvi in District Chitrakoot and on coming to the end of the said project, the services of respondent No. 2 were discontinued.

5. Submission is that the said facts were specifically pleaded in the written statement by the employer, however, the Labour Court did not advert itself to the said submissions and recorded a finding that the petitioner’s services has been illegally dispensed with, and accepted the claim of respondent No. 2 solely on the basis of an identity card (Exhibit W-25).

6. Respondent workman claimed that he was appointed on the post of Draftsman with the respondent Corporation on 1.2.2001 and he has worked regularly till September, 2003 at Karvi in the District Chitrakoot. Thereafter, he was transferred in the office of the Corporation at Banda. However, his services have wrongly been dispensed with on 1.8.2005. He has worked for more than 240 days in the petitioner Corporation. In support of his submission, the petitioner has filed several documents namely experience certificates etc. as the proof of his working in the Corporation. The employer’s witness recorded his statement and categorically denied the execution of the documents namely Exhibits W-9 to W-22. It was stated that the said documents were not part of the official record.

7. Categorical statement of the employer was that there was no post of Draftsman in the Corporation office at Banda. Moreover, the post of Draftsman is a regular sanctioned post and has to be filled in accordance with the rules after notifying the vacancy. The rules of recruitment on the said post provides for a written examination and interview for selection. Admittedly, no such procedure has been adopted in the case of respondent No. 2 and he has not been appointed on the post of Draftsman.

8. Submission is that while recording the finding that respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Draftsman (civil) on 1.2.2001, the Labour Court had not gone into the pleadings and no finding arrived at on the basis of these pleadings rather the Labour Court simply relied upon the identity card of respondent No. 2 and recorded that he was appointed on the post of Draftsman. The said finding is erroneous and cannot be sustained.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another, (2008) 1 SCC 575, to submit that when the terms and conditions of employment are governed by a statute and statutory rules, no appointment can be made by an authority without following the provisions of the recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules would be a nullity.

10. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and other