ORDER ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- The present appeals relate to the employment of the appellants as auxiliary nurses/midwives in the Salvation Army MacRobert Hospital, Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"). The appellants are holders of diploma having passed the examination concerned held by the Jammu and Kashmir State Medical Faculty (in short "the Medical Faculty"). They are not, however, registered under the Punjab Nurses Registration Act, 1932 (in short "the Act"). The Hospital issued notices for termination of services of the appellants primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it was indicated that the Hospital was going through bad financial times and therefore there was scope for doing away with the services of some of its employees. Secondly, it was indicated that the appellants were not registered under the Act and therefore were not eligible to be appointed. Reference was made in this context to the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act which prohibits appointment/employment of unregistered nurses. The orders of termination gave rise to industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. By award dated 8-10-2001, the Labour Court came to hold that the a termination of services of the appellants is illegal. It was held that the plea of financial stringency was not established. Secondly, it was observed that the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the ID Act") were not complied with. Therefore, it was held that the termination of service as done cannot be maintained. It was indicated that even if the appellants were not registered, they had put in nearly two decades of service. There was nothing pointed out regarding any deficiency of service by them and therefore the plea of non-registration was really of no consequence. Direction was given for reinstatement with full back wages and all allied benefits from the date of registration of the reference i.e. 1-8-1994 till the actual reinstatement. Writ petitions were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Hospital. By the impugned order the High Court c held that the view expressed by the Labour Court was not sustainable, more particularly in view of what has been stated by this Court in R.B. Sewak Ram Maternity Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court1. Accordingly writ petitions were allowed. By the impugned order the High Court c held that the view expressed by the Labour Court was not sustainable, more particularly in view of what has been stated by this Court in R.B. Sewak Ram Maternity Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court1. Accordingly writ petitions were allowed. The directions given by the Labour Court were modified to the extent that there shall be no reinstatement but the entitlement for back wages would depend upon the question whether the present d appellants obtained certificate of registration from the competent authority under the Act. 2. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision in R.B. Sewak Ram easel is clearly distinguishable. It is not clear from the judgment as to the period of service the employees concerned in that case had rendered. Further, there is nothing on record to show that at the time of initial employment there was concealment of any factual position. If with eyes open the employer Hospital employed the appellants, it cannot now turn around and say that the appointments were illegal. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the directions of the High Court, prayer was made to the competent authority for grant of registration. The authority concerned has rejected the prayer by its letter indicating that those candidates who have f passed their examination from the Medical Faculty can be registered with the Punjab Nurses Registration Council only when the said Medical Faculty is entered in the Schedule of the Nursing Council Act, 1947 (in short "the Council Act"). 3. In response the learned counsel for the respondent Hospital submitted that by continuing the appellants in employment the Hospital would have 9 exposed itself to penal consequences in terms of Section 17 of the Act. That being so, the High Court has rightly held that the order of termination was sustainable and enforceable. 4. Though an effort has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants to factually distinguish R.B. Sewak Ram easel the legal position as was indicated in the said judgment clearly shows that the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. Section 17 of the Act deals with the power to prohibit unregistered persons from practising. The provision reads as follows: "17. Section 17 of the Act deals with the power to prohibit unregistered persons from practising. The provision reads as follows: "17. Power to prohibit unregistered persons from practising.-(1) Any local authority may make bye-laws prohibiting unregistered persons from practising as nurses, health visitors, midwives, nurse-dais, auxiliary nurses and midwives, trained dais or dais within the area •subject to its authority and may in such bye-laws provide that any person practising in contravention of such bye-laws or any person committing or abetting the commitment of a breach of any such bye-laws shall be liable on conviction by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for a first offence, or to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees for a second or subsequent offence. (2) If any local authority fails to make bye-laws under sub-section (1), the State Government may by notification prohibit unregistered persons from practising as nurses, health visitors, midwives, nurse-dais, auxiliary nurses and midwives, trained dais or dais within the area subject to such local authority, and any unregistered person practising in contravention of such notification shall be liable, on conviction by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for a first offence or to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees for a second or subsequent offence. (3) Not withstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment, rule, bye-law or other provision of law for the time being in force, no person other than a registered nurse, a registered health visitor, a registered midwife, a registered nurse-dai, a registered auxiliary nurse and midwife, a registered trained dai or dai shall be competent to hold any appointment or be employed as such in any hospital, asylum, infirmary, dispensary, lying-in-hospital, nursing home, maternity home, health centre or other such institution, private or public, whether supported by voluntary contributions or not." 5. Sub-section (3) clearly mandates that no person other than those registered shall be competent to hold an appointment or be employed. In view of this absolute bar, the Hospital could not have confined the employment of the appellants. We find that the appellants had applied for registration under the Act and the prayer has been rejected. Sub-section (3) clearly mandates that no person other than those registered shall be competent to hold an appointment or be employed. In view of this absolute bar, the Hospital could not have confined the employment of the appellants. We find that the appellants had applied for registration under the Act and the prayer has been rejected. It provides a fresh cause of action to the appellants to avail such remedy as may be available in law questioning the correctness of the decision of the Council refusing to register the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.