Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 28.10.2000 (Annexure P3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar (respondent No.l), vide which respondent No. 2 (for short the workman) was reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity. 2. The workman was engaged as a gunman on 23.12.1987 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per working day. His services were terminated by the petitioner-Bank with effect from 1.11.1993 vide, termination notice dated 29.10.1993. A draft for Rs. 4872/- on account of one months notice and retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service was also attached with the notice. A copy of the notice is annexed with the petition as Annexure P2. It is the case of the petitioner that the workman somehow got an inkling of his termination. In order to avoid receipt of the termination order dated 29.10.1993, the workman rushed to Chandigarh and filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13412 of 1993 titled as Kafam Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., in this Court. Thus, the termination order alongwith the retrenchment compensation could only be served on the workman on 4.11.1993. Anyhow, the termination was made effective with effect from 1.11.1993. The said writ petition was disposed of this Court with a direction to the Management for consideration of the case of the workman for regularisation of his service. The Management after considering the claim of the workman in compliance with the direction of this Court, ultimately rejected the claim of the workman for regularisation of service by passing a speaking order dated 15.4.1994. Resultantly, the workman challenged his termination by making reference to the Labour Court, Jalandhar. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on examining the evidence adduced on record by both the parties, the Labour Court accepted the reference vide the impugned award dated 23.10.2QP0 on the ground that the termination of the workman was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) as the retrenchment compensa- tion was not paid to the workman on the date of termination, i.e: 1.11.1993, itself. It was held that as the retrenchment compensation; was paid to? It was held that as the retrenchment compensation; was paid to? the workman after three days of the termination, therefore, sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act has not been made by the Management. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In short the case of the petitioner is that the intention of the Management was to make service of the notice alqngwith the retrenchment compensation on the workman on 29.10.1993 itself. However, the service of the notice could not be effected as the workman had rushed to Chandigarh in order to avoid service of the termination order with effect from 1.11.1993, It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that making of the tender of the amount before the termination of the service would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking v. The IndustrialTribunal, Delhi and Anr. A.l.R. 1965 Supreme Court 1503. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the prescribed rules for appointment. Rather, he contends that this recruitment had been made through back-door entry system. Thus, being a back door appointee, the termination of the services of the workman even without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not be bad. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench authority of this Court reported as Brij Bhushan y. Industrial Trilnmal-cum-Labour Court and Ors., 7- (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 838. He has also placed reliance on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., J.T. 1997(4) S.C. 560, in order to contend that being a daily wager, the workman has no. right to the post and his disengagement from service cannot be treated under the Act. 4. However, in order to controvert the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.S.Dadwal, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, has contended that as the workman had completed more than 240 days in the service of the petitioner, therefore, the retrenchment of service could only be done in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. 4. However, in order to controvert the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.S.Dadwal, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, has contended that as the workman had completed more than 240 days in the service of the petitioner, therefore, the retrenchment of service could only be done in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sayed Azam Hussaini v. Andhra Bank Ltd., 1995 Recent Services Judgments 888. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find merit in the contentions raised by Mr. Ash- wani Prashar, learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the completion of 240 days of service by the workman is concerned, there is no dispute with regard thereto. The point for consideration by this Court is whether sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has been made by the petitioner-Management before terminating the services of the workman or not. 6. The undisputed case of the petitioner is that notice dated 29.10.1993 (Annexure P3) alongwith the demand draft of the same date was intended to be served on the petitioner much before the date of termination, i.e. 1.11.1993. However, as the workman rushed to Chandigarh in order to get his termination stayed from this Court, the notice as well as the demand draft could only be served on him on 4.11.1993. It is not the case of the workman that the demand draft was not dated 29.10.1993. In case the Management did not intend to pay the retrenchment compensation before terminating the services of the workman, there was no point in getting prepared the demand draft on 29.10.1993. It is also not the case of the workman that he was very much available for service of the notice as well as willing to accept the demand draft in lieu of retrenchment compensation. The offer made on behalf of the petitioner-Management before the date of termination has not even been disputed by the workman. It is also not the case of the workman that he was very much available for service of the notice as well as willing to accept the demand draft in lieu of retrenchment compensation. The offer made on behalf of the petitioner-Management before the date of termination has not even been disputed by the workman. In The Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking v. The Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under:- "The proviso to S.33 does not mean that the wages for one month would have to be actually paid, because in many cases the employer can only tender the amount before the dismissal but cannot force the employee to receive the payment before dismissal becomes effective. The making of the tender of the amount before the order of dismissal becomes effective would be sufficient compliance in this respect." In the light of the afore-quoted dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that there has been sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act on the part of the petitioner-Management before terminating the services of the respondent-workman. 7 There is also no dispute to the fact that the workman was a daily wager at the time of termination of his service. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthis case (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a daily wager has no right to a post and his disengagement from service cannot be treated under the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of this authority also the termination of the services of the workman even without compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be considered bad by any stretch of imagination. 8. Still further, there is no dispute to the fact that the appointment of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He had made entry into the service of the petitioner through back door method. 8. Still further, there is no dispute to the fact that the appointment of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He had made entry into the service of the petitioner through back door method. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Brij Bhushan s case (supra) that the prayer for reinstatement by a back door appointee may be refused even though the termination of the service of such an employee may have been brought about without compliance of the provisions contained in Section 25-F or 25-G of the Act. In view of the dictum of the Division Bench, I feel no hesitation in holding that the respondent-workman has no right to reinstatement into service of the petitioner. 9. In the light of the above discussion, I allow the writ petition and set aside the award dated 23.10.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar. However, there shall be nor order as to costs.