JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition filed by the Respondent whereby the award passed by Labour Court, Patiala (for short, "the Labour Court") for reinstatement of the Appellant was set aside and it was declared that he shall be entitled to wages in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").

3. The Appellant was engaged by the Respondent with effect from 1.8.1994 for doing the work of clerical nature. He was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He continued in the service of the Respondent till 29.09.1996. His service was discontinued with effect from 30.9.1996 without giving him notice and compensation as per the requirement of Section 25F of the Act.

4. The Appellant challenged the termination of his service by raising an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. In the statement of claim filed by him, the Appellant pleaded that he had continuously worked in the employment of the Respondent from 1.8.1994 to 29.9.1996; that his service was terminated without holding any enquiry and without giving him notice and compensation and that persons junior to him were retained in service. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent, it was pleaded that the Appellant was engaged on contract basis and his service was terminated because the Director, Local Self Government did not give approval to the resolution passed for his employment. According to the Respondent, the resolution passed for engaging the Appellant was sent to the Deputy Director for approval, but the same was returned with the remark that the approval may be obtained from the Director, Local Self Government. Thereafter, the resolution was sent to the Director, Local Self Government but no response was received from the concerned authority and, therefore, it became necessary to discontinue the service of the Appellant.

5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them, the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of the Appellant without back wages. The Labour Court held that the Appellant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the termination of his service and that his service was terminated with effect from 30.9.1996 without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act. The Labour Court rejected the plea that the termination of the Appellant's service is covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act by observing that no evidence was produced by the Respondent to prove that it was a case of termination of service in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court entertained and allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent by relying upon the judgments of this Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 1 SCC 1; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575; Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi 2007 (2) SCC 813; M.P. Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575 and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 261. The Division Bench was of the view that the Labour Court should not have ordered reinstatement of the Appellant because his appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it would not be in public interest to sustain the award of reinstatement after long lapse of time. Simultaneously, the Division Bench declared that the Appellant shall be entitled to wages in terms of Section 17B of the Act.

7. Shri R.L. Batta, learned senior counsel for the Appellant argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because while interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the Division Bench of the High Court ignored the judicial