JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan, respondent 3 herein, was initially appointed as a class IV employee on a temporary basis, of the petitioner, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Road, Transport Corporation, with effect from 1 to 14 December 1972. Thereafter his appointment was continued under letters of appointment extending his appointment from time to time. This state of things continued till 1 August 1975, when the Assistant Regional Manager of the petitioner-corporation gave him a months notice stating that his services were no longer required and the same are being terminated. This led to an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government under S. 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred was whether the order, dated 1 August 1975, terminating the services of Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan v/as valid and proper and, if not, to what relief/compensation was he entitled. Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan appeared in support of his case and also filed documentary evidence before the Labour Court. His case was that he was a regular employee and the impugned order, dated 1 August 1975, purporting to terminate his services treating him as a temporary employee by giving him a simple one months notice was unsustainable in law. It was also pleaded that his termination amounted to retrenchment and he having worked for more than 240 days could not be retrenched without complying with the requirements of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was asserted that no retrenchment compensation was either paid or offered to him. 2. The petitioners filed a written statement before the Labour Court asserting that Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan was not a regular employee but was a temporary hand and his services were hence validly terminated by giving him a months notice. They however, did not adduce any evidence what ever before the Labour Court in support of their case. The Labour Court considered the evidence on record and held relying on, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. N. Sundramm [1976 - II L.L.N. 5], that the termination of the services of the concerned workman was wrongful and unjustified inasmuch it he was neither paid nor offered retrenchme. compensation as required by law. Labour Court directed the rein statement the workman with continuity in service full back-wages. 3. compensation as required by law. Labour Court directed the rein statement the workman with continuity in service full back-wages. 3. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Ink [1976 - II L.L.N. 5] (vide supra), as well as Chandu Lal v. Pan American World Airways Inc. [1985-II L. L. N. 582], Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not seriously challenge the finding of the Labour Court that the termination of the employment of the concerned workman amounted to retrenchment and consequently in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act the order of termination passed against the workman was clearly wrongful and unjustified entitling him to reinstatement. 4. The main contention of Sri S.K. Sharma, however, was that the Labour Court committed a manifest illegality in awarding full back-wages to the workman. He put his argument thus. The order of termination was passed in 1975. According to the trend of judicial authorities prevailing at that time the Assistant Regional Manager rightly thought that the services of the workman could be terminated by giving him a months notice in terms of the relevant service regulations governing the service conditions of employees of the corporation holding to the appointments. It was urged that according to the opinion of the Courts which then prevailed, the term " retrenchment " was understood as applying only to those cases where the services of employees were terminated on account of the employees becoming surplus. He submitted that the wider interpretation assigned to the term " retrenchment " as defined in S. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as including all kinds of termination of services of a workman for any reason whatsoever and even if the same was brought about in terms of the contract of service or the Standing Orders became known much later and after the impugned order, dated 1 August 1976, had been passed by the Assistant Regional Manager. That being so and in view of the further fact that the employers were a State corporation, award of full back-wages resulting inevitably in loss of public revenue was wholly unjustified. 5. I am unable to agree. That being so and in view of the further fact that the employers were a State corporation, award of full back-wages resulting inevitably in loss of public revenue was wholly unjustified. 5. I am unable to agree. According to the settled legal position the order of termination passed against the workman clearly amounted to retrenchment and hence the same was plainly wrongful and unjustified inasmuch as admittedly the provisions of S. 25F were not complied with. It equally settled that if the employment of a workman is terminated wrongfully and illegally, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances reinstatement with full back-wages must follow as matter of course. In my considered view, the fact that the pronouncements of the Supreme Court giving a wider interpretation to the term "retrenchment" were rendered subsequently to the passing of the termination order cannot afford a valid ground for refusing full back-wages to the workman. The pronouncements of the Supreme Court starting from 1976 onwards on the interpretation of the term " retrenchment " as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act did not imply that the law was changed in 1975. The law remained same throughout and if, according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, the termination of the employment of respondent 3 was wrongful, he could not legitimately be denied the benefit of reinstatement and full back-wages. It was not alleged by the petitioner before the Labour Court that respondent 3 was usefully employed somewhere else during the relevant period, namely, 1 August 1975, till the date of the award rendered by the Labour Court. That being so, the Labour Court cannot be said to have committed any error in awarding full back-wages to respondent 3. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel was that respondent 3 was a temporary employee holding short term appointments from time to time. He had not acquired the status of a regular employee. The Labour Court has, however, directed reinstatement without indicating whether respondent 3 is to be treated as a regular employee or as a temporary fixed term employee. In my opinion, the order of the Labour Court is clear on the point. He had not acquired the status of a regular employee. The Labour Court has, however, directed reinstatement without indicating whether respondent 3 is to be treated as a regular employee or as a temporary fixed term employee. In my opinion, the order of the Labour Court is clear on the point. It has directed reinstatement of the petitioner and, in the absence of any finding that respondent 3 had acquired the status of a regular employee, it must follow that the reinstatement directed by the Labour Court was against the same nature of the post which respondent 3 held on 1 August 1976. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but I make no order as costs.