M. L. BHAT, J. ( 1 ) ). Out of the. se six writ petitions, three petitions are filed by Ram Kumar Sharma (Writ Petition No. 5079 of 1988), Anil Kumar Misra (Writ Petition No. 8174 of 1988) and Anil Kumar Shori (Writ Petition No. 5081 of 1988 ). The remaining three writ petitions ate filed by the respondents against the award which is partly impugned in the other three writ petitions These writ petitions are filed by the General Manager of the bank in question. The corresponding counter writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Ram Kumar Sharma is writ petition no. 6355 of 1988, the corresponding counter writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Anil Kumar Misra is writ petition no. 6258 of 1988 and the corresponding writ petition filed by the respondents against the writ petition of Anil Kumar Shori is writ Petition No. 6359 of 1988. In all the six writ petitions the same award is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioners are only partly aggrieved against the said award whereas the respondents are aggrieved against the entire award. It is, therefore, advantageous to decide all these six writ petitions together by one judgment. ( 2 ) IT seems that the petitioners services were terminated with effect from 7. 6. 1983 and the State Government referred the industrial dispute to the labour Court vide its order dated 16. 5. 1984, which passed an award on 24. 11. 1987. ( 3 ) IN writ petition No. 5081 of 1988 it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc clerk-cum cashier but periodically his services were terminated and fresh appointment letters were issued to him. In three years about 13 appointment letters were given to him. The petitioner was held to have been working as a clerk-cum-cashier and was not doing work purely of temporary nature, although he was paid only one half of the wages of the regular clerk but he was doing the work of a regular clerk. Regular appointments are to be made after approval/selection by the Co-operative service Board, Luck now The petitioner is said to have not been approved / selected by the said Board. Regular appointments are to be made after approval/selection by the Co-operative service Board, Luck now The petitioner is said to have not been approved / selected by the said Board. However, he is said to have worked, for 240 working days before his termination but has not been paid any retrenchment compensation as required under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act The petitioners termination was said to be illegal; The labour Court did not direct Ms reinstatement because the petitioner was not approved/selected by the Co-operative Board. The petitioner was, therefore, declared to be continuing in service till the employers paid him retrenchment compensation with effect from 7. 8 1983 to the date of payment plus Rs. 50 by way of cost. The employers were directed to pay him full pay and other allowances which he would have received, if he was not retrenched, for the above period. The petitioner challenges the omission of the Labour Court to grant the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner after termination of his service was declared invalid and illegal. It is contended that the relief of reinstatement should not have been refused by the Labour Court and the said relief has deprived the petitioner an opportunity of becoming permanent in his employment on securing the approval/selection by the Service board in due course of time. The petitioner wants a relief that the award be quashed to the extent it has refused to grant the appropriate relief of reinstatement in service to the petitioner and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents No. 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner as clerk-cum-cashier. ( 4 ) THE counter writ petition filed against the said award by the respondent bank challenges the award and wants the impugned award to be set side and the direction that the said award may not be implemented. It is stated that the provisions of Section 6-N and 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act are not applicable to the present case. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar Shori is said to have been for a fixed term, therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not applicate to him because it was not a case of retrenchment. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar Shori is said to have been for a fixed term, therefore, the aforesaid provisions are not applicate to him because it was not a case of retrenchment. The contract of service has come to an end, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has ceased to be an employee of the Bank after his fixed term for which he was appointed has expired. ( 5 ) IN writ petition No. 8174 of 1988 the petitioner, Anil Kumar Misra was declared by the Labour Court to have been appointed as on dd hoc temporary clerk-cum-cashier but periodically his services were terminated and fresh appointment letters were issued to him and within a period of three years not less than six appointment letters have been issued in his favour. He was not doing the work of temporary nature but was doing the work of regular nature. He was paid one half of wages of a regular clerk. He is said to have worked for 240 days in the last preceding year before termination of his service but has not been paid any retrenchment compensation as required under the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court did not direct the reinstatement of the petitioner but directed the respondents to pay him full pay and other allowances which he would have got, if not retrenched, The petitioner challenges the omission of the Labour Court to grant the relief of declaration of reinstatement in his favour when termination of his service was found illegal and invalid. ( 6 ) THE Bank Manager has filed writ petition No. 6358 of 1988 against the said writ petition of Anil Kumar Misra and challenged the award as a whole. It is stated that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Labour court is challenged as being bad and it is stated that the respondent No 2 anil Kumar Misra was appointed for a fixed term, therefore, question of retrenchment of such employee does not arise. ( 7 ) IN writ petition No. 5079 of 1988 filed by Ram Kumar Sharma the relief claimed by the petitioner is on the identical grounds on which it is claimed by the other petitioner in writ petitions No. 5081 of 1988 and 8174 of 1988. ( 7 ) IN writ petition No. 5079 of 1988 filed by Ram Kumar Sharma the relief claimed by the petitioner is on the identical grounds on which it is claimed by the other petitioner in writ petitions No. 5081 of 1988 and 8174 of 1988. ( 8 ) THE counter writ petition filed by the Bank authority, writ petition no. 6355 of 1983, is also based on the same facts on which the other two writ petitions No. 6358 of 1983 and 6359 of 1983 are based. The cases are identical and the pleadings are exchanged by the parties in the writ petitions. ( 9 ) ON facts there is no dispute. It is the case of both the parties that the petitioners were appointed by the Co-operative Bank authorities on ad hoc basis and they had worked for about three years and thereafter their services were terminated. It is also admitted that prior to their termination of services they had completed 240 working days in the preceding year just before the impugned orders of termination were issued. ( 10 ) ONLY three questions that fall for consideration are, whether the petitioners were entitled to get the relief of reinstatement from the Labour court consequent upon the Labour Courts finding that the orders of termination of their services issued against them were illegal and invalid, or whether the award is liable to be set aside as a whole, as asserted by the bank authorities. In the event of petitioners success in the writ petition whether they are entitled to claim regularisation of their services and are entitled to be paid wages equal to the wages which are paid to the regular employees of their Bank. ( 11 ) IN case the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief of reinstatement, mr. Murlidhar appearing on their behalf, submitted that their services are required to be regularised under the Regularisation Rule of 1985 It is stated that they are discharging the same functions which are being discharged by regular employees of the Bank ( 12 ) MR. Murlidhar has placed a photostat copy of the judgment delivered by the Luoknow Bench of this Court on 20. 3,1990 in the case of prem Shanker Yadav and others v. Stats of U. P. and others on record. Murlidhar has placed a photostat copy of the judgment delivered by the Luoknow Bench of this Court on 20. 3,1990 in the case of prem Shanker Yadav and others v. Stats of U. P. and others on record. Before adverting to that judgment it is necessary to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to get the relief of reinstatement as claimed by them in the writ petition or not or whether there was any omission made by the Labour Court in this regard. On going through the contents of the award it is revealed that the Labour Court has held the termination of the petitioners services as violative of Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the U P. Industrial Disputes Act. The termination of service was without payment of retrenchment compensation which was held to he had. The natural concomitance of the findings of the Labour Court is that it the same position is to be maintained which had obtained in respect of the petitioners prior to the issuance of the orders of termination of their service. After having found the termination of the petitioners services bad and illegal, the only course open to the Labour Court was to direct the reinstatement of the petitioners, of course, with an option to the employer to dispence with their services, if so advised, in accordance with law but the reinstate men; of the petitioners services could not be refused if the termination order of their services was wiped out. After wiping out the termination order of their services, there is no impediment in the way of the petitioners under law to occupy the same position which they occupied immediately before the orders of termination of services were issued against them. The Labour Court seems to have omitted to pass a direction with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioners though the labour Court was obliged to make such a direction after it had annulled the orders of termination of their services. Therefore, the award passed by the labour Court to this limited extent suffers from infirmity. It is, therefore, directed that the award passed by the Labour Court shall be altered and deemed to have contained i infection about the reinstatement of the petitioners on the post which they occupied on the date of termination of their services. It is immaterial the they had held the post on ad hoc basis. It is, therefore, directed that the award passed by the Labour Court shall be altered and deemed to have contained i infection about the reinstatement of the petitioners on the post which they occupied on the date of termination of their services. It is immaterial the they had held the post on ad hoc basis. If their termination of services was held to be bad, they could be relegated to the same position from which they were removed. ( 13 ) MR. Mandiiyan has submitted that the petitioners were not retrenched or removed. The contract of labour with them had expired. They were employees for a fixed term and after the expiry of that term they will be deemed to have ceased to be the employees of the Bank- This argument, though ingenious, cannot be accepted because that was not the case of the bank before the Labour Court nor can it be said that the petitioners were appointed for only fixed term From the appointment letters which were issued to the petitioners from time to time it appears that artificial breaks were given in their continuity of service which denied the right of acquiring regular status. Such a practic- has been held to be unfair by the Labour court and rightly so. The petitioners appointment has been continued for three years periodically by giving them appointment letters. In one case 13 appointment letters were given. 80 such a practice is definitely not fair. The appointments were made periodically because the Bank had chosen a novel device of continuing the petitioners by breaking their services periodically for a day or two. Any how this aspect of the case has been dealt with by the Labour Court and there is no defect in the award of the Labour Court so far as the setting aside of the termination order of the petitioners service is concerned. The Labour Courts award is well-reasoned. It is to be altered in part because the Labour Court had failed to give declaration prayed for by the petitioners about the petitioners reinstatement which it was enjoined to make. ( 14 ) THE contention ot Mr. Murlidhar, counsel for the petitioners in writ petitions No. 5079 of 1988, 8174 of 1988 and 5081 of 1988 has force and must prevail. Mr. ( 14 ) THE contention ot Mr. Murlidhar, counsel for the petitioners in writ petitions No. 5079 of 1988, 8174 of 1988 and 5081 of 1988 has force and must prevail. Mr. Mandhyans contention about the petitioners being fixed term employees, whose services could be dispensed with on the expiry of the term is not worth consideration. Therefore, his contention is rejected. ( 15 ) THE writ petition Mo. 507) of 1988, 8174 of 1988 and 5081 of 1988, so far as the relief of their reinstatement is concerned, are to be allowed and the writ petitions filed by the opposite side being writ petitions No. 6355 of 1988, 6358 of 1988 and 6359 of 1988 are to be dis-missed. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, before making formal order in these writ petitions it is necessary to consider the third question which was argued by Mr. Murlidhar before the Court, His contention is that under the Regulations of 1985 the petitioners* services are required to he regularised if they were in service in 1985. The petitioners were definitely in service upto June, 1983 and their services were terminated by a void order which was subsequently held to be illegal by the Labour Court. That being so, the petitioners will be deemed to be in service in 1985. Therefore, they will be covered by the Regularisa-tion of Service Rules of 1985- The contention of Mr. Murlidhar has subs-tance. It it an admitted case of the parties that upto June, 1983 the peti-tioner had remained in service though on ad hoc basis. They had completed 240 working days during the preceding year immediately hefore the orders of termination of their services were issued. Their case was referred to the labour Court in 1984. The Labour Court passed the award on 24. 11. 1987. It set aside the orders of termination of the petitioners* services holding that the same was illegal and invalid. The petitioners are relegated to the same position which they occupied on the date on which their services were terminated by an illegal and invalid order. Therefore, they will be deemed to be in service in 1985 when the Regularisation of Service Rules came into effect. If they were in service on th;it date, then they are entitled to get the benefit of the said Regularisation of Service Rules and their services are required to be regularised. Therefore, they will be deemed to be in service in 1985 when the Regularisation of Service Rules came into effect. If they were in service on th;it date, then they are entitled to get the benefit of the said Regularisation of Service Rules and their services are required to be regularised. ( 17 ) THE regularisation of the petitioners* services is no more res-integra the judgment delivered by the Luck now Bench of this Court on 23. 3. 1990 squarely applies to the petitioners and their services are to be regularised as they are governed by the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Institutional Service board Regulations of 1985. It will, however, not serve any purpose if the petitioners are asked to make representation for regularisation of their services. The facts of the case arc crystal clear. Therefore, in order to finalise the dispute raised by the petitioner it is necessary that some effective order is passed. Mr. Mandhyan has also admitted that the aforesaid judg-ment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court is applicable to the facts of the petitioners case insofar as it concerns the regularisation of their services. ( 18 ) AS a result of the aforesai i discussion writ petition No. 5079 of 1988, 8174 of 198s and 5081 of 1988 succeed and- are allowed. The peti-tioners of these writ petitions are granted the following relief : (a) By a writ of ceniorari the award, dated 24,11 1987 is directed to be altered to contain a direction, that the petitioners will be reinstated to the same post which they held on the date when their services were illegally terminated. As a consequence of this the petitioners are entitled to get back wages and all other benefits which are due to th^m under rules ; (b) The respondents "f these writ petitions are directed to implement the award treating the same to contain a direction of reinstate-ment of the peti: ioners to the same post which they held on the date of illegal termination of their services ; (c) The petitioners* services are directed to be regularised in accor-dance with the Regulations of 1985 and they be paid the same wages which wilt be paid to the regular employees of their rank from the date of their regularisation. The regularisation of the petitioners servt. The regularisation of the petitioners servt. es be effected within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the res-pondent Co-operative Bank. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons gi\en above writ petitions No. 6355 of 1988. 6358 of 1988 and 6359 of 1988 fileu by the General Manager of the Bank against the award have no force. ( 20 ) THERE will be no o der as to costs in view of the peculiar circum-stances of the case. ( 21 ) THE interim orders granted in writ petitions No. 6355 of 1988, 6358 of 1988 and 6359 of 1988 are hereby vacated. Petitions allowed. .