Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed by government College, Sector-1, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Principal Shri Raghbir chand Goyal challenging impugned award (Annexure P-8) dated April 20, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby it has been ordered that respondent No.2 Ram Karan (hereinafter called the workman) is entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service with full back wages. 2. Respondent-workman had served a demand notice, on which following reference was sent to the Labour Court: "whether the termination of services of workman Ram Karan is justified or not? If not so to what relief is he entitled" 3. Thereafter, respondent-workman submitted claim statement (Annexure P-3), in which it was stated that he was employed by the petitioner-management on September 5, 1997 as a Chowkidar and his full salary was Rs.2900.00 p. m. and that subsequently, his salary was reduced to the half of his original salary, i. e. Rs.1450.00 p. m. It was averred therein that his services were illegally, terminated on september 3, 2002. The management filed written statement (Annexure P-4 ). It was stated therein that the respondent-workman had worked on contract basis from December 12, 1998 to March 30, 2002 with intermittent breaks. Issues were framed and parties led their evidence. Learned Labour Court in para 15 of its award, held that the workman, had put in more than 240 days of, continuous service in the last 12 preceding months before the date of his termination, i. e. March 30, 2002, and concluded as under: "27. Keeping in view my findings in the aforesaid issues, the claim petition of the petitioner succeeds and the same is hereby accepted with costs. Accordingly, the impugned order of the respondent thereby terminating the services of the petitioner-workman is hereby set aside being wrong, illegal and null and void and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman along with all the consequential service benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. " 4. Learned Labour Court further held that plea of the management that the workman was employed by the Contractor, cannot be believed and gave following reasoning: "7 7. " 4. Learned Labour Court further held that plea of the management that the workman was employed by the Contractor, cannot be believed and gave following reasoning: "7 7. Even otherwise, a notice Mark A issued by the Principal of the respondents institution thereby inviting the tenders for the job work of computer campus cleaning/cycle stand security for the session 2002-2003 beginning from the July, 2002 and the application Exhibit M-16 submitted in response thereto by the alleged contractor gurmit Singh cannot be according any credence at all as the said document do not bear any date thereon. Besides, it has not been clarified by the respondent management as to on what terms and conditions the said contractor had allegedly employed the present petitioner nor it has brought the alleged contractor into the witness-box in order to support its assertions to the effect that the petitioner had been employed by the said Contractor or that is why his services had been terminated by the said Contractor. " 5. On the basis of this reasoning, labour court concluded that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the Labour Court. It was for the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days. Therefore, he could not be held to be entitled to reinstatement into service. It has nowhere come in evidence that appointment of the workman into public employment was in the above said judgment, it has been in pursuance of any advertisement issued or his name was requisitioned through any employment exchange. Workman was a contractual employee. 6. The workman could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court in State of Karnataka and Others V/s. Umadevi and Others 2006-II-LLJ-722. 7. We find that the view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, samrala V/s. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 : 2006-II-LLJ-553 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his/her appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. We find that the view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, samrala V/s. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 : 2006-II-LLJ-553 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his/her 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 Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment, similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai V/s. Siemens Ltd.2007-I-LLJ-717, Indian Drugs and pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s. Workmen 2007-I-LLJ-580, Reserve Bank of India V/s. Gopinath Sharma and Another AIR 2006 SC 2614 : (2006) 6 SCC 221 : 2006-III-LLJ-492 and U. P. Power Corpn. Ltd. and Another V/s. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others 2007-II-LLJ-832, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management has further relied on judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Sharma V/s. P. O. , labour Court, U. T. Chandigarh and Another 2006 (4) Service Cases Today 672, wherein it was held that retrenchment has been defined in sec. 2 (oo) of the Act but the same does not include exception under Sec.2 (oo) (bb)termination of the service of workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract or employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation shall not amount to retrenchment and Section 25-F compliance is not required held as under: ". . . Therefore, the question of workman taking the plea that the matter falls within the purview of Sec.25-F of the Act does not arise. It is not a case where the workman was continuously appointed with artificial gap of one day or so to say that the management was prone to unfair labour practice. A conjoint reading of the said offer and the extensions thereof (Annexures P-1 to P-3)clearly shows that they were contractual and were for a fixed term. In this backdrop the case of the petitioner-workman falls within the said exception of Clause (bb ). A conjoint reading of the said offer and the extensions thereof (Annexures P-1 to P-3)clearly shows that they were contractual and were for a fixed term. In this backdrop the case of the petitioner-workman falls within the said exception of Clause (bb ). It is thus imperative to conclude that the termination of the workman did not amount to retrenchment as the same was in consequence with the terms and conditions of his appointment extensions. Thus, the services of petitioner have come to an end with efflux of time. Once the conclusion logically so arrived is that the termination of the workman from the employment did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act, in our view there is no question of application of Sec.25-F of the Act. Our this view finds support from a decision rendered by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural marketing Board V/s. Subhash Chand and another 2006-II-LLJ-241. The Labour court has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that the services of petitioner workman were discontinued after the expiry of fixed term and it is not open to him to raise dispute under the Act by taking the plea of applicability of Sec.25-F of the Act. " 9. Resultantly, we accept the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, whereby services of the respondent workman were ordered to be reinstated.