ORDER : A. Kulasekaran, J.—The Management- Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation has filed the above writ petition for the issue of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.1117 of 1989 dated 14.2.1994 directing reinstatement of the first respondent with backwages. 2. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the first respondent was employed as watchman from 1.7.1977 in the office of the petitioner Corporation at Mount Road, Madras, by the third respondent -Branch Manager, who has no power to appoint the first respondent herein. It is the further case of the petitioner that all appointments have to be made only by the Managing Director or the General Manager of the petitioner Corporation, depending upon the category of recruitment either on permanent or temporary or casual basis. As such, the appointment of the first respondent by the third respondent is not tenable in law. It is also the case of the petitioner that no order of appointment was issued by the third respondent as regards the appointment of the first respondent in the services of the petitioner Corporation. 3. The case of the first respondent workman is that he was employed as watchman from 1.7.1977 in the services of the petitioner Corporation at Mount Road, Madras. Thereafter, he was transferred to Moolakothalam Branch and again he was transferred to Broadway Branch. The first respondent was entrusted with the work of watchman and he was also asked to attend the work of cleaning and fuelling of the vehicle, continuously for a period of 12 years. During the course of such employment, he was paid Rs.8/- per day as daily wages. He has made a number of representations to the Management to regularise his services. One of the representations sent by him to the Chief Minister's Cell was referred to the Management. In stead of regularising his services, the Management has illegally terminated him with effect from 18.4.1989. The first respondent has approached the Conciliation Officer. As the Conciliation Officer has filed a failure report, the first respondent has filed an Industrial Dispute u/s 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the second respondent Labour Court. 4. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent -workman has filed Exs.W1 to W25 and the Management Corporation has filed Exs.M1 to M5. As the Conciliation Officer has filed a failure report, the first respondent has filed an Industrial Dispute u/s 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the second respondent Labour Court. 4. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent -workman has filed Exs.W1 to W25 and the Management Corporation has filed Exs.M1 to M5. The first respondent herein has examined himself as WW1 and one K.Pandi was examined on the side of the Management as M.W.1. 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides, the Labour Court has found that M.W.1 Pandi has not disputed that the first respondent herein was in continuous service for a period of 12 years. The Labour Court, after careful perusal of all the documents, pointed out that the wages were paid to the first respondent herein by the Management continuously for a period of 12 years and the audit wing of the Corporation was also aware of the same and the nature of employment given to the first respondent, is a perennial one. But the Management without regularising the services of the first respondent herein, has denied employment, without any valid reasons. Hence the Labour Court has passed the award directing the Management to reinstate the workman -first respondent herein with backwages. 6. Mr T.Arulraj, learned counsel for the petitioner Management advanced arguments that the award of the Labour Court is contrary to law, that the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the Industrial Dispute, that the alleged appointment was made by the Branch Manager who is not entrusted with the power to appoint any person in any cadre and for these reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions: 1. Eranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Labour Court and others 1986 II L.L.J. Ker 492. 2. Dinesh Shivubha Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (1992) 1 GLR 608 . 3. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 . 7. In Eranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Others, (1986) 2 LLJ 492 a person ineligible to be appointed for want of requisite qualification was appointed as salesman on temporary basis subject to approval of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 3. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 . 7. In Eranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and Others, (1986) 2 LLJ 492 a person ineligible to be appointed for want of requisite qualification was appointed as salesman on temporary basis subject to approval of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The request for appointment as salesman was turned down by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In effect, the Society resolved to terminate the services of such ineligible person. Revision Petition filed against the resolution of the Society was turned down by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the view that appointment was contrary to rules. On approaching the Labour Court, the Labour Court has directed the Management to reinstate the employee. Aggrieved by such award, the Management has approached the High Court. Learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court held that appointments made without obtaining the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is without the authority of law and hence abinitio void. 8. In Dinesh Shivubha Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, the persons not employed through Employment Exchange, such persons sought regular employment in the Management. In a petition filed by the Management, a learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court has held that if irregular appointment is regularised and a back-door entry is approved by judicial decision, not only those persons who were the beneficiaries of irregular appointment would get undue advantage over the appointments from regular market, but would frustrate and defeat the object of enacting such statues like the Employment Exchange Act. 9. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, the Supreme Court has held that person employed under the scheme of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna cannot claim regularisation merely because they have put in more than 240 days of service. Such regularisation claimed, if granted, would jeopardise the public interests. The Supreme Court has further held that Jawahar Rozgar Yojna scheme was meant for the rural poor,for the object of the schemes was to start tackling the problem of poverty from the end. The object was not to provide them to work as such even to the rural poor, much less to the unemployed in general. 10. The Supreme Court has further held that Jawahar Rozgar Yojna scheme was meant for the rural poor,for the object of the schemes was to start tackling the problem of poverty from the end. The object was not to provide them to work as such even to the rural poor, much less to the unemployed in general. 10. In the case on hand, it is seen that the first respondent workman was in service from 1.7.1977 to 18.4.1989 that is, continuously for a period of 12 years. The said period of 12 years is not disputed by the Management. Admittedly, the first respondent workman was transferred to different places. It is the case of the first respondent workman that after the retirement of his father from the services of the Corporation, he was appointed as a daily wager. Exs.W1 to W4 dated 9.4.1979, 12.1.1980, 19.2.1981 and 8.4.1985 respectively, are the identity certificates issued by the Management to the first respondent workman. Ex.W13 is the representation dated 3.7.1989 sent by the first respondent workman to the Chief Minister's Cell to direct the Management to regularise his services. The said representation was received by the Chief Minister's Cell under Ex.W8. It is the case of the first respondent workman that the Chief Minister's Cell has directed the Management to investigate the matter, which prejudiced the Management and in the result, his employment was denied from 18.4.1989. By Ex.W9 dated 18.3.1989, the first respondent has again sent a representation to the Management. After receipt of the said Ex.W9, the Management has sent a communication under Ex.W10 dated 27.4.1989 directing the first respondent workman to appear on 3.5.1989 at 9.00 a.m. at Villupuram along with his educational certificates and driver licence and a certificate from Eye Doctor. Under Ex.W11, the first respondent has approached the Commissioner of Labour, to raise an Industrial Dispute. The Dispute was referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Ex.W12. The Management has filed a counter under Ex.W15 wherein it is stated that the Branch Manager has no jurisdiction to appoint the first respondent workman. However, the Deputy Commissioner has sent a failure report. The area of dispute in the writ petition is that the Branch Manager who is not entrusted with a power to appoint a person in the services of the Corporation, has given employment to the first respondent herein that too without approaching the Employment Exchange. 11. However, the Deputy Commissioner has sent a failure report. The area of dispute in the writ petition is that the Branch Manager who is not entrusted with a power to appoint a person in the services of the Corporation, has given employment to the first respondent herein that too without approaching the Employment Exchange. 11. A Division Bench of our High Court, in The President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and K. Nagarajan, (1996) 2 LLJ 216 has held as follows: " ... Firstly, the bank, which had appointed the petitioner, had taken his services, and paid wages during the period he worked, cannot now be permitted to say that the appointment was bad in law, therefore it was entitled to terminate the services without following the procedure prescribed under the I.D.Act. The bye-law referred to above, does not require that the appointment to be approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Further, the petitioner was not appointed as regular employee. He was appointed only on daily wage basis. The services contemplated under the bye-laws are the regular appointments and not the appointments on daily wage basis, therefore, the contentions based upon the special bye-law and the circular of the Registrar, which cannot be applied to the present case, as it is a pure and simple case of appointment on daily wage basis, cannot be accepted. When once the workman is appointed on daily wage basis and if he works for 240 days in a year, he must be said to be in continuous service as per Section 25B of the Act, as such he is entitled to be made permanent. However, we do not propose to enter into this aspect of the matter and record any finding on this because it is not one of the points raised in the dispute referred to the Labour Court. The dispute referred to the Labour Court was only with regard to the non-employment of the petitioner and the computation of relief in term of money if it is held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to point out that the writ petitioner worked for over two years. Thus, he was in continuous service for more than one year as such he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to point out that the writ petitioner worked for over two years. Thus, he was in continuous service for more than one year as such he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. The expression `retrenchment' as per Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act means the termination by the employer of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action as long as such termination does not fall within the category of the voluntary retirement of a workmen or retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. Thus, Section 2(oo) does not make any difference between regular appointment or temporary appointment or appointment on daily wage basis or appointment of a person not possessing requisite qualification. Clause (bb) in Section 2(oo) came to be inserted only with effect from August 18, 1984, therefore the said provision is not applicable to the present case. The present case also does not fall under Clause(c) because the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on the ground of continued ill-health. Similarly, Section 25F of the Act specifically provides 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 by that employer until (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice (b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous Service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This is a case in which the petitioner was in continuous service for more than one year under the bank irrespective of the fact whether the appointment made by the bank was valid one or not. This is a case in which the petitioner was in continuous service for more than one year under the bank irrespective of the fact whether the appointment made by the bank was valid one or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was temporarily appointed by the Board of the Bank on August 1, 1980 as it is specifically stated in the counter filed by the bank before the Labour Court, Madurai which reads thus: " The Board of respondent bank decided on July 25, 1980 to appoint the petitioner temporarily with effect from August 1, 1980 on wages at Rs.5/- per day and to request the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to exempt the case of appointment of the petitioner from the circular of the Registrar dated September 17, 1977 as the appointment would be against that circular". It is also further stated in paragraph 13 of the counter that the petitioner was to be confirmed on the date of termination of the employment, but the bank could not help terminating his employment instead of confirming them. From the impugned order of termination of the petitioner, it is clear that the same has been done pursuant to the direction issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchy in the report made by him in RC No.14755/81-B5(i) dated April 9, 1982. It may be pointed out here that even though the termination was made pursuant to the direction of the Joint Registrar, nevertheless such a termination was required to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 25F of the Act in asmuch as the said section does not make any difference whether the appointment has been made in accordance with law or not. The expression used in that section is, `workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer', therefore the factum of employment is relevant and not the legality or otherwise of it. 12. It is evident from the abovesaid decision of the Division Bench that even an employee who was temporarily appointed on daily wage basis, is also entitled to be heard, before passing the order of capital punishment of termination of service. 12. It is evident from the abovesaid decision of the Division Bench that even an employee who was temporarily appointed on daily wage basis, is also entitled to be heard, before passing the order of capital punishment of termination of service. In view of the said decision rendered by the Division Bench, I do not want to rely upon the decisions rendered in Eranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited's case 1986 II L.L.J. Ker 492 and Dinesh Shivubha Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, . More over, the facts and circumstances of those cases are different from the case on hand. 13. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Jawahar Rozgar Yojna scheme is applicable only for a limited purpose. Moreover, the employment given to persons under such scheme, is not perennial in nature, whereas in the case on hand, the first respondent workman was in service continuously for a period of 12 years. The fact that the petitioner Corporation has given work to the first respondent workman continuously for a period of 12 years will prove beyond reasonable doubt that the employment given to the first respondent is perennial in nature. Hence with great respect, I am unable to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, . 14. The plea raised by the petitioner Corporation that the claim of the first respondent is liable to be rejected on the ground that the first respondent workman has not impleaded the Corporation, is rejected, as the Manager of Broadway Branch of the Corporation was made as a party in the claim petition itself. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the second respondent Labour Court is perfectly justified in passing the award directing the Corporation to reinstate the first respondent workman in service, with backwages. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court. Following the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in The President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court. Following the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in The President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and K. Nagarajan, cited above,the petitioner Corporation is directed to reinstate the first respondent workman in his original place, with all backwages, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.