Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of impugned award dated 21.2.2006, Annexure P. 4, rejecting the claim of the workman for reinstatement. 2. Case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he worked as a Beldar with the PWD department from 1989 to 1994. Her services were terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation. 3. The management contested the claim by submitting that she worked intermittently and left of her own and that she had already attained the age of 60 years. 4. The Labour Court held that termination being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, `the Act) but she being of more than 50 years of age, was not entitled to reinstatement. It was also held that PWD department was not "industry" in view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kuldeep Singh and another, 1983 Lab I.C. 83]. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view of this Court stands impliedly over ruled by judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Des Raj etc. v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 SC 1182 and that the workman should have been reinstated. 6. We are unable to accept the submission made. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation. Her appointment was not as per rules or regulations and this being the situation, her reinstatement would be contrary to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755, State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi, (2006)1 SCC 221. Even applicability of Section 25-F of the Act is open to doubt in view of Exception (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act as interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.