Judgment :- Kurian Joseph, J. Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam is under challenge. As per government order dated 23-3-1993 the issue referred for adjudication under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is as follows:- “Denial of employment to G.Thankamany, Helper.” The worker is the second respondent herein and the establishment where work if denied is the Maveli Store run by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Officer that she was illegally denied work by the second petitioner and the Government made a reference of the issue as referred above. According to the second respondent she was engaged as a Helper during April 1984 to September 1989 and thereafter there was discontinuance. The management contended that they had not appointed the second respondent as worker. It was specifically averred that the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is a fully owned government company and the authority to make appointment in the establishment is the Managing Director. To quote from the written statement “…….the worker can never claim any right as an employee in the establishment nor can claim any right for doing work in any past not properly appointed by the authorities concerned………” It was also contended as follows: “If anyone is accidentally allowed to do work on certain days that will not result in any legal right for employment with the person concerned. Therefore, it may please be found that there is no employer employee relationship between the worker and this Management…………..” Mainly two issues were framed by the labour court (1) whether the worker was employed under the management as alleged? (2) Whether the denial of employment alleged is true? Apart from the second respondent’s oral evidence the only other piece of evidence is that of WW2 who is a headload worker. There was no documentary evidence and no wonder no evidence on the part of the management. Be that as it may, based on the only corroborative evidence of a headload worker the labour court answered the reference in favour of the worker and found that there was illegal termination and therefore the impugned award was passed “directing the management to reinstate the worker with full backwages, continuity of service and all other statutory benefits.” 3. Suffice it to say the award shocks the judicial conscience. True the management did not adduce any evidence. Suffice it to say the award shocks the judicial conscience. True the management did not adduce any evidence. But should not the worker establish her case that she was a worker appointed by the management. As already stated above 2nd respondent has not produced any documentary evidence. No evidence regarding the alleged payments received by her was produced though she had deposed in evidence that she was being paid at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. 4. On going through the records it is seen that the second respondent had preferred a complaint before the labour officer. Alappuzha on 5-10-1992 complaining that she had worked in the Maveli Store of the Corporation for five years prior to 28th September 1989 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 20/-. She admitted in the complaint that another person was engaged in her place thereafter and therefore she represented that the matter should be enquired into and appropriate action should be taken. It is to be noted that even admittedly the alleged termination is on 28-9-1989 and the complaint preferred before the labour officer is only on 5-10-1992 and quite casually the Government referred the matter for adjudication to the labour court. It is really strange that neither the Government nor the Corporation paid any serious attention in the matter. Whatever that be without entering an objective satisfaction as to the status of the worker, the Labour court patently erred in passing an award based on the interested testimony of the worker and corroborated only by a head load worker. There was no evidence at all regarding the period of such engagement. After all, the alleged employment is in a public sector undertaking. The worker could not even stare the date of engagement. It is significant also to note that even that headload worker is not a worker of the management. He is only a head load worker doing the work in that area. That apart, the worker herself did not have a consistent case regarding the payment received by her. Therefore, in such circumstances the Labour Court should not have casually exercised it jurisdiction in order to enter a finding regarding the status of worker and denial of employment. The finding is certainly unreasonable and perverse. That apart, the worker herself did not have a consistent case regarding the payment received by her. Therefore, in such circumstances the Labour Court should not have casually exercised it jurisdiction in order to enter a finding regarding the status of worker and denial of employment. The finding is certainly unreasonable and perverse. Under the Industrial Disputes Act if a person works in an industry continuously for not less than an year such worker can be discontinued only by following the procedure for retrenchment under the Act. That does not mean that every person who completed the said period in an establishment is entitled for reinstatement continuity and regularization in service. Regularisation is available only to a person who has been appointed to a post. A person can be said to be appointed to a post only if such appointment is made in accordance with the recruitment rules and such person alone becomes a member of the service. A person engaged on daily wages is not appointed in service as per the recruitment rules and hence not entitled for declaration for reinstatement and continuity of service. 5. In this context it is profitable to refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad U.P. v. Anil Knumar Mishra, AIR 1994 SC 1638 dealing with the case of ad hoc assignments it was held as follows at paragraph 4 of the judgment:- “There were no sanctioned posts in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them, the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of Industrial; Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days work. The legal consequences that flow from work from that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947are entirely different from what, by way of implication is attributed to the present situation by way of analogy. The completion of 240 days’ work does not under that law import the right to regularization. It merely impose certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of the service. The completion of 240 days’ work does not under that law import the right to regularization. It merely impose certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of the service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that analogy in an extended or enlarged from here.” It may be seen that the worker did not have a claim for regularization in service in the instant case and yet shockingly, the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement with continuity in service. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, AIR 1966 SC 1565 dealing with the case of termination of daily wage employees the Supreme Court held as follows:- “It is settled law that having made rules of recruitment to various services under the State or to a clause of posts under the State, the State is bound to follow the same and to have the selection of the candidates made as per recruitment rules and appointments shall be made accordingly. From the date of discharging the duties attached to the post the incumbent becomes a member of the services. Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules.” 6. In view of the above legal position, it cannot be said that a finding on illegal retirement should automatically follow reinstatement with continuously of service. That depends on the facts and circumstances in each case. May be the management, a public sector undertaking in this case did not adduce any evidence. But that by itself is no reason or justification for the labour Court to accept the interested version of the worker as such and give a declaration on the status of worker to a person and award the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service. There should be proper evidence regarding employment and denial of employment. I set aside Ext.P1 and allow the original petition with cost. The 2nd respondent shall pay the cost of Rs.2000/-to the Kerala High Court Legal Service Committee.