Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 12.1.2006. Annexure P.l, directing reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. Case of the workman was that he worked from February 2000 to 14 2.2001 on muster rolls as Driver of a Jeep. He again worked lion 15.22001 to 9.7.2004 but his services were terminated orally without following any procedure. 3. The management denied that the workman worked with it. 4. The Labour Court held that the workmans case stood proved from his statement, which was supported by other evidence and also by drawing adverse inference for withholding the correct record by the management. It held that the workman having worked for more than 240 days and termination being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short. `the Act) he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a statutory authority governed by rules and regulations and there being no written order of appointment, without following the rules or regulations, even if case of the workman that he worked on muster rolls as a daily wager, is held to be accepted, termination of his services did not amount to retrenchment, in view of Clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act and appointment having not been made by following rules or regulations, the same will be inconsistent with Article 14 of the constitution and reinstatement was not justified. 6. Learned counsel for the workman supported the impugned award. 7. 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 give de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bh) 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 : (007(1) SLR 388 (SC]. Appointment give de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bh) 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 : (007(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)5 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. 8. Accordingly, we allow this petition and set aside the impugned award.