Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 29.8.2005, Annexure P. 3, directing reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 2. The dispute raised by respondent No. 2 workman was that he joined service with the petitioner-management on 2.4.1994 as Mate. His services were terminated on 18.4.1997 in violation 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 engaged as contingent worker on muster rolls w.e.f. 2.4.1994 and was paid daily wages. He abandoned the job with effect from 18.4.1997 and joined service with M/s Enkay Construction Company, Gurgaon. 4. The Labour Court held that the workman having rendered 240 days of service and having not been paid retrenchment compensation, was entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages. 5. The contention raised in the petition is that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not attracted as the workman was daily wager. 6. Learned counsel for the workman supported the impugned award. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Government Company and is governed by Article 14 of the Constitution. The appointment of the workman was not by following any rules or regulations and was only as a daily wager. He worked for about three years. 9. It has been held in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81, paras 14 and 15 that if appointment is of a temporary duration, Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act will be attracted and termination will not amount to retrenchment it has been further held that in public employment, appointment has to be as per rules and regulations, in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007)1 SCC 533, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that direction to reinstatement in public employment cannot be given for mere violation of Section 25-F of the Act. In Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007)1 SCC 533, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that direction to reinstatement in public employment cannot be given for mere violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Similar view has been taken in 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 UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007)5 SCC 755 , wherein it has been held that direction for continuation of services of a temporary employee appointed to public employment de hors the rules and regulations, is not permissible. 10. In view of above, we are unable to sustain the impugned award. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned award is quashed.