Judgment MEHTAB GILL, J. 1. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Arts.226/227 of the Constitution of india is the award rendered by the Presiding officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial tribunal, Hisar, copy Annexure P-6, whereby reference has been answered against the petitioners and in favour of respondent-workman to the effect that the termination of his services was not in order but was justified. By the impugned award, the respondent-workman has been held entitled for reinstatement, with continuity, with all other consequential benefits and 25 per cent back wages from the date of his demand notice, dated May 15, 1997, till reinstatement. 2. The grounds of challenge are that the respondent-workman was never appointed against a regular/sanctioned post; that he was on daily wages and unskilled labourer on purely day to day basis against a specific work as per requirement of work to be done and availability of the daily wagers; that no appointment letter was issued to the respondent-workman; that the respondent-workman, thus, cannot be considered as a workman under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , that the services of the respondent-workman were retrenched with effect from March 6, 1997 after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the services of respondent 1 were terminated as per instructions dated August 16, 1996 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, as there was financial crunch being faced by the State government. 3. The stand of respondent-workman was that inadequate retrenchment compensation was paid to him and that juniors to him were retained in service which is in violation of provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the industrial Disputes Act. , 4. The learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar after considering the rival claims of the parties passed the impugned award, as noticed earlier. 5. We have heard Sri Raghubir chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, haryana for the petitioners and perused the contents of the writ petition as also the annexures attached therewith. 6. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were retrenched as per instructions of the Engineer-in-chief which were to the effect that there was surplus staff and due to financial crunch on the State Government, the petitioner could not be kept in service. Thus, the services of all the daily paid labourers who were employed after May 1, 1995 were terminated. 6. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were retrenched as per instructions of the Engineer-in-chief which were to the effect that there was surplus staff and due to financial crunch on the State Government, the petitioner could not be kept in service. Thus, the services of all the daily paid labourers who were employed after May 1, 1995 were terminated. Shri Ram Karan has stated in his testimony that many persons were employed even after termination of his services. This statement of workman goes unchallenged in his cross-examination. Thus, it is deemed to have been admitted. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.