Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 1.12.2004, Annexure P. 1, directing reinstatement of respondent No. 2 workman with 50% back wages from 22.1.2001, the date of demand notice to the date of publication of the award and full wages thereafter. 2. The dispute raised by the respondent No. 2 workman was that he worked as a Mali (Gardner) from 8.8.1997 to 4.4.1999 when his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act.) 3. The management contested the claim and stated that the workman was employee of a contractor and the management neither engaged him nor terminated his services. 4. The Labour Court rejected the stand of the management by observing that even name of the contractor has not been disclosed in the pleadings. A suggestion was given to the workman that he was employed by Bhagat Ram and Sher Singh, which he denied. Bhagat Ram and Sher Singh were examined by the workman, who stated that they themselves were employees of the petitioner- management. 5. The management produced documents Exhibits M.W.1 and M.W.2 to prove the contracts but being photo copies, the same were not accepted. The workman was held to have worked under the management for more than 240 days and accordingly, he was directed to be reinstated with back wages as mentioned above. 6. In the petition, stand taken is that the workman did not produce any document from the office of the petitioner nor examined any other witness and in view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Manager RBI Bangalore v. S. Mani and others, AIR 2005 SC 2179 , the workman was not entitled to reinstatement. 7. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that in a DB judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2006 in Maharaja Agarsain Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another, CWP No. 18846 of 2006, wherein the petitioner-Institute was a party, it was held that if services of an employee is terminated after 240 days, the termination will be invalid. Special Leave Petition was dismissed against the said order. 8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the workman. 9. Special Leave Petition was dismissed against the said order. 8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the workman. 9. The petitioner is a Medical College under the control of the State of Haryana and employment under the petitioner is, thus, public employment and in such a situation, the question is whether deemed employment on a fixed salary without following any rules and regulations for a period of less than two years can be treated as enough to reinstate the workman into service only on the ground that retrenchment compensation was not paid. 10. We find that the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations, is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007)1 SCC 53 . Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007)1 SCC 408 , Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006)6 SCC 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007)5 SCC 755 , it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. 11. The above decisions of the Honble Supreme Court have not been taken into account while deciding DB Judgment in CWP No. 18846 of 2006 (supra) relied upon on behalf of the workman. The said judgment, is thus, distinguishable. 12. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned award.