JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh, J. - The writ petition is admitted and it is taken for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an employer against the workman and some formal parties paying that award dated 31-3-19S6 of the Industrial Tribunal be quashed and the opposite parties be directed not to enforce the award. The workman has contested the matter. 3. It seems that the employer terminated the services of the workman, who raised an Industrial Dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award on 31-7-1985. in this award as regards this workman it was held that he had not completed 240 days of continuous service and so he was not entitled to any relief. Then an application was given for rectification of this award. The Industrial Tribunal while exercising power under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act rectified the award and this time on 31 3-1986 it found that the workman had served tor more than 240 days, so his services could not be dispensed with without following the proper procedure and therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. It is against this amendment award of 31-3-1986 that the present writ petition has been filed in May, 1988. 4. The first question to be seen is whether this writ petition should not be rejected on the ground of undue delay as it has been filed more than 2 years after the impugned award. The argument of the employers is that no doubt award was given on 31-3-1986 but its copy was sent after publication to the employer on 2-2-1988. However, it is not mentioned any where in the affidavit that the employer did not come to know of the award earlier. Normally the award is given within a few days after hearing and in does not appear to be a confidential documents, when under Rule 25(2) of the U. P Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 even a stranger to a dispute on application can obtain a copy of award. This copy of an award, he can obtain after the decision, as given in the rule and he need not wait till its publication. This copy of an award, he can obtain after the decision, as given in the rule and he need not wait till its publication. The .Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 says that Industrial Tribunal shall submit its award to the State Government. It means that decision of the Tribunal becomes award even before it is published. Thus its copy can be had under Rule 25(2) which provides for copy of an award, just after the decision on, when award is given by the Tribunal It is not said in the affidavit that the employer did not become aware of the award. It appears that he must have known about the award soon after it was given and there was no justification for waiting for 2 years for filing this writ petition. Hence it appears that there was undue delay in filing this writ petition. 5. The argument of the employer is that power to correct an award has been given under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and what has been done by the Tribunal could not be done under this provision. From a perusal of the award of the Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal wanted to decide the question whether the workman had served for 240 days in the previous year. The Tribunal said in the first award that the workman had not furnished a copy of the joining report, which could have shown the exact date, when his services started. It again said that Gradation list had been produced before him but therein the name of the workman was not to be found. Subsequently, an application being made to the Tribunal it said that the joining report was on the record and in the Gradation list the name of the workman showing the date of joining was there and these had escaped his notice. So taking these documents in consideration it amended the award and came to the conclusion that the workman had served for 240 days. So it has to be seen whether this action of the Tribunal is covered by Section 6(6) of the U. Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act says that the Tribunal can correct any error arising in an award from an accidental slip. So it has to be seen whether this action of the Tribunal is covered by Section 6(6) of the U. Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act says that the Tribunal can correct any error arising in an award from an accidental slip. It was an accidental slip that the joining report escaped the notice of the Tribunal and the Tribunal accidentally failed to see that the name of the workman was in the Gradation list. So the matter fell within the purview of Section 6V6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Only the evidence, which was on the record, and which by accidental slip escaped the notice of the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave decision saying that the evidence was not on record was taken notice of while giving the amended award. So it cannot be said that the award could not be amended under Section 6(6) of the U.P. industrial Disputes Act. 7. Even if it is presumed for a moment that the Tribunal could not do what it had done under the aforesaid provisions it will not be proper for this court to interfere. In the case reported in (1988) 1 SCC 40 - Mohammad Swalleh and others v. Third Additional District Judge, Meerut and another, there was an appeal to District Judge to whom appeal did not lie. The District Judge heard the appeal and allowed it and it was allowed rightly. Thus justice has been done, so Supreme court said that in such circumstances there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence even if the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to amend the award, there should be no interference with its amended award, because the amended award takes all facts into consideration and decides the matter rightly. 8. Another point that has been passed by the employer is that the employer could make such appointment only after recommendation of the Industrial Service Board and since in this case the appointment was made on ad hoc basis without the recommendation of the Public Institutional Service Board, the appointment was void ah initial and the workman cannot get any right by completing 240 days of service. 9. Generally the appointing authority is some officer of the department. In order to ensure fair selection the process of selection is often entrusted to a Selection Committee. 9. Generally the appointing authority is some officer of the department. In order to ensure fair selection the process of selection is often entrusted to a Selection Committee. Public Service Commission or Institutional Service Board. Such Boards or Commissions hold examination and make recommendations. In some cases their recommendations are not binding and recommendations of even Public Service Commission are not held binding on Government. If an appointment is made without the recommendations of such Board or Commission it may certainly be irregular but the question is as to how long this irregularity can be kept alive, so as to challenge the appointment and how long this sword of demotes will be kept on hanging on the workman. In Writ Petition No. 1080 of 1973, N.K. Pandey and others v. Government of U.P. and others a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow observed as follows : "An appointment which is neither casual occasional nor ad hoc but is in conformity with Rule is regular appointment and unless the contest requires it does not mean permanent appointment, though permanent appointment cures any procedural irregularity in the method of appointment and may make the period of appointment prior to confirmation are regular appointment." 10. At another place the Bench remarked : "So far as the opposite parties are concerned then confirmation from particular date or a year having become final and not open to challenge which was rightly given up in this petition, it is no longer open the petitioner to contend that Public Service Commission was not consulted." 11. The observations seem to suggest that any procedural irregularity in appointment including not consulting of Commission, may loose its value if a person becomes permanent. To ne this seems imminently just because when the employer has appointed a parson knowingly in an irregular manner and he does not correct it within a reasonable time and confirms the employees, that employer should not be permitted to say after a lapse of a considerable time may be after retirement, that the person was appointed in a regular manner and so he has no right to continue or to get retirement benefits. In the case before me, the case of the workman is stronger. A workman does not know as to what irregularity is being committed by his employer. In the case before me, the case of the workman is stronger. A workman does not know as to what irregularity is being committed by his employer. He is not in a position to insist upon his employer not to commit any irregularity and he has to accept a job. An unscrupulous employer may intentionally appoint a man in an irregular manner and may after some time throw him out saying that he was irregularly appointed and then he may appoint another person in the same manner and with the same result. Its result will be that the employer will always be able to save him from the clutches of Industrial Disputes Act and the workman will be worst suffered. This cannot be said to be just when the Industrial Disputes Act has been enacted for helping the poor workman. 12. The matter does not end here. The Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act says that no workman employed in any Industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched unless certain conditions are fulfilled and according to Section 2(g) the workman, who during the period of 12 Calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days, is deemed to have completed one year continuous service. The Section 6-R says that some provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act including Section 6-N shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. So the provisions of Section 6-N should be given effect irrespective of fact whether any other law regarding appointment or method of appointment has been contravened or not. Section 6-N does not say only that workman, who has been regularly appointed, will get protection of that section. It rather says that the protection shall be available to each and every workman. So this protection is available even to the workman, who had not been regularly appointed, according to rules, if he fulfils the condition of having worked for 240 days. Therefore, the case of the workman cannot be rejected on the ground that his appointment was irregular inasmuch as he was not recommended by the Institutional Services Board. 13. So this protection is available even to the workman, who had not been regularly appointed, according to rules, if he fulfils the condition of having worked for 240 days. Therefore, the case of the workman cannot be rejected on the ground that his appointment was irregular inasmuch as he was not recommended by the Institutional Services Board. 13. Another objection raised in para 21 of the petition is that the award was published by the State Government after about year and nine months and as such the said publication is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(3) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The aforesaid section and Section 17 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act provide that every award shall, within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt by the Government, be published. So the argument in other words is that since the award has not been published within 30 days it has become invalid. 14. There is no doubt that the Government is bound to publish the award and in this much the section is mandatory. But the point to be seen is as to whether the part providing period of 30 days for publication is also mandatory and what will be the result if the award is published beyond 30 days. 15. It is common knowledge that Clerks have these days a very important rule to pay in the working of Government offices and it also cannot be denied that these days once anxiety to perform its duty has decreased. So if a clerk for some reason intentionally or unintentionally just keeps the file with him and does not see to it that its publication is gone through in 30 days, what will be the result will it mean that all the labour and expense spent on procuring the award and the time of the panes would go to waste and the party in whose favour the award is given would suffer and the party which is wrong and which suffers under the award would gain and get rid of the award ? This cannot be the intention of the legislature. If it is held it may create havoc and the workman, who may be poor and weak and may have no approach to the Government officers, may suite at the hands of strong and not so good employer. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. If it is held it may create havoc and the workman, who may be poor and weak and may have no approach to the Government officers, may suite at the hands of strong and not so good employer. So this part that the publication of the award should be made in 30 days can only be held to be directory. It cannot be the indention of the legislature that if the Government does not publish the award in 30 days, it is relieved of its duty of publishing the same, or published it without any purpose. No consequence as not publishing the acceded is provided in the Act. 16. The question as to whether the award published after the lapse of 30 days would become invalid for non-publication within a specified period directly arose before the Supreme Court in Remington Rand, of India Ltd. v. The Workman, AIR 1968 SC 224 . In this case Mitter, J. said : "The limit of time has been fixed as showing that the publication of the award ought not to be held up. But the frication of the period of 30 days mentioned therein does not mean that the publication beyond that time will render the award invalid. It is not difficult to think of circumstances when the publication of the award within thirty days may not be possible. For instance, there may be a strike in the press or there may be any other good and sufficient cause by reason of which the publication could not be made within thirty days. If we were to hold that the award would therefore, be rendered invalid, it would be attaching undue importance to a provision not in the mind of the legislature. It is well known that it very often takes a long period of time for the reference to be concluded and the award to be made. If the award becomes invalid merely on the ground of publication after thirty days, it might entail a fresh reference with needless harassment to the parties. The non-publication of the award within the period of thirty days does not entail any penalty and this is another consideration which has to be kept in mind." 17. If the award becomes invalid merely on the ground of publication after thirty days, it might entail a fresh reference with needless harassment to the parties. The non-publication of the award within the period of thirty days does not entail any penalty and this is another consideration which has to be kept in mind." 17. Thus, it must be held that the award has not become invalid on account of its publication after the period of thirty days and this part of the section is only directory. But it must be the concern of all, that this Government took one year and nine months to publish the award when it was expected to publish it within 30 days. It means that there is something wrong with the machinery, and the Government should give a serious thought to it. 18. No other point was pressed and the result is that this writ petition has no merits. The petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 750.