Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 18.12.2003, Annexure P.3, directing reinstatement of respondent No.2 workman with 50%, back wages. 2. Case of the workman was that he was appointed as Sweeper and worked from 1.4.1994 to 25.3.1995 with notional breaks. when his services were terminated without following any procedure. 3. The management contested the claim by submitting that the workman was appointed on temporary muster rolls/daily wages by the Sub Divisional Engineer and he worked intermittently for few days. He was not given any appointment letter and he was not it regular employee. The Haryana Urban Development Authority was not industry. 4. The Labour Court held that according to the workman, he served for 337 and the management failed to produce the entire record and thus, it could he presumed that the workman worked for more than 240 days. 5. In the writ petition, stand of the management is that presumption was wrongly drawn that the workman had completed 240 days of service and the reinstatement with back wages was not justified. On 8.5.2007, following order was passed : "Counsel for the petitioners states that the workman has not completed 240 days of service, in 12 months, preceding the date of his alleged termination, to claim benefit of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act. 1947. Counsel further submits that no application was moved by the respondent-workman to summon the record. The Labour Court has wrongly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner. without any justification. Notice of motion for 23.7.2007. Operation of the impugned award shall remain stayed till further orders subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industiral Disputes Act, 1947." None appears for the workman. 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 be termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be 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 533 : [2007(1) SLR 302 (SC], Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007)1 SCC 408 : [2007(1) SLR 388 (SC], 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)3 SCC 755 : [2007(3) SLR 589 (SC], 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. 6. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside.