Judgment :- The petitioner-Management has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Chikamagalur in IDR No.43/2004 dated 25-3-2008 directing the Management to reinstate the respondent into service to his original post as per Annexure-A and for such other orders. 2. A reference was sought by the I party workman before the Labour Court, Chikamagalur stating that the Management had terminated his services w.e.f., 1-1-2001 without any enquiry and without any notice and also without paying retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25F of the I.D.Act. On the basis of the references, the Labour Court after enquiry, having referred to various contentions raised by the workman that he had put in 240 days of service in a year as such he has satisfied the requirement of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act has passed an award ordering to reinstate the workman. The respondent has worked from 1-3-1992 to 31-12-2000 without any interruption. The Labour Court Chikmagalur noting that the I party workman had satisfied the concept of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act and refusing employment to him cannot be said to be legal, ordered the Management to reinstate the respondent to his original post, however, without back wages and that order has been challenged by the Management on various grounds. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. It is submission of the learned counsel for the Management that this afforestation and deforestation is only ancillary and incidental for manufacturing of paper and only the forest land was leased to the factory for the purpose of raising raw material to this project. In the process, some officials from the Forest Department were deputed to look after the work of afforestation and deforestation. Apart from that some other persons were also engaged on daily wage basis for the said project and on completion of the said project, the services of the temporary daily wage workers were disengaged. Therefore, question of retrenchment does not arise and that would not amount to denial of employment, as such question of termination would not arise. Referring to various decision of the Apex Court, contended that there is no such retrenchment. 5. Therefore, question of retrenchment does not arise and that would not amount to denial of employment, as such question of termination would not arise. Referring to various decision of the Apex Court, contended that there is no such retrenchment. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the earlier affidavit filed by the very same Officer before this court, he has taken a contention that he is working as Chief Forest Officer in the Petitioner Management and stated that there is no relationship of employer and the employee between the II party and the I party and there is no termination of services as alleged in the claim statement. Also referring to the Cross-examination of the said Officer, he has pointed that this Officer who sworn the affidavit has pleaded his ignorance as to the fact that about 350 workmen were appointed as Forest Field Workers on consolidated payment and out of 625 workers, only 24 workers have been refused employment for which he pleaded his ignorance. No material is produced except a bald statement and no document to the effect that it was project for which, the I party workman was appointed and there is no material to show as to when the project was commenced and when it was completed. Therefore, submitted that the order of the Labour Court cannot be found fault with. As such the order of the reinstatement has to be up-held while dismissing the petition. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced by both the parties, let me to consider whether the order of the Labour Court holding that the respondent is entitled for reinstatement is justifiable or not? 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management had taken me through the counter statement filed before the Labour Court wherein it is specifically mentioned that some persons were taken on casual and daily wage basis to complete the project/scheme to make the land fit for afforestation and the Government has leased the huge extent of land to the Company to make use of the same for raising captive plantation to meet its requirement of raw materials. It is also contended by the Company that there is no necessity of holding an enquiry or to give advance intimation to comply with the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and also no material has been produced by the workman to show the relationship of employer and employee between the II party and the I party in the claim statement. 8. It appears the I party workman was appointed as Douzer Helper on 1-3-1992 on monthly wages basis and his services were continued up to December 2000 depicts the fact that he was appointed on daily wage basis. According to the petitioner, it is only in furtherance of the project, the Company had to extract raw material for afforestation and therefore, these persons were engaged in the project and not for the purpose of industry. Engaging a douzer helper is not a part of the work in the company rather it was exclusively looked after by the officials of the Forest Department who were deputed from the Government. 9. In this decision reported in (2007)2 SCC 255 in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority V/S Om Pal referring to Section 25-B and Section 25-F the Apex Court has held that Employment of daily wager/casual employee in different establishments even under the same employer or controlling authority held would not amount to continuous service. As such relief to be given on non-compliance with Section 25-F – not automatic reinstatement and grant of relief depends on factual situation of each case. In the decision reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 676 in the case of State Of Rajasthan V/S. Maresh Subey in the case of non-compliance with Section 25-F, the Apex Court held that due to non-availability of work, granting compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be justifiable. In the decision reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 429 in the case of the State Of M.P. And Others V/S. Arjunal Rajak referring to provisions of the Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India, it was held that on facts, appointment of respondent not having been made with such conformity, he derived no status as he was appointed as a daily wager and a daily wager does not hold a post. Non-compliance with Section 25-F – relief that may be granted on such abolition of project or scheme or office itself, to pay some compensation is held to be justifiable. In the decision reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 434 in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. And Another V/S. S.C. Pandey wherein the Apex Court held that a casual labour, even on completion of 240 days’ continuous service, just because he has completed the said period that by itself would not confer any legal right upon him to be regularized in service, if the appointment is made contrary to the statute, the same would be void. In the decision reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 190 in the case of State Of U.P. V/S. Neeral Awasthi And Others wherein the Apex Court held that when a poet is not sanctioned, normally, directions for reinstatement should not be issued. The Apex Court has held that the illegal appointments cannot be regularised neither temporary nor permanent status be conferred by regularization. In the decision reported in 2005 SCC (L & S) 628 in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. V/S. Anil Kumar Mishra And Others, the Apex Court held that the status of workman cannot be envisaged for adhoc appointees on analogy with provisions of I.D. Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days’ work. It merely imposes certain obligations on employer at the time of termination of service. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others V/S Umadevi And Others, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein. Further it is observed that the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the Department or the instrumentality of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. The court cannot impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly?. 11. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. The court cannot impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly?. 11. In the instant case, even as per the contention of the workman that he was appointed to the project as Douzer Helper by the II party-Management on monthly wage basis, he worked so from 1-3-1992 to 31-12-2000 and also according to him, he has put in 240 days continuous service in a year, as such he is entitled for regularization, he has produced relevant materials. But, according to the Management, it has taken specific contention before the Labour Court that the respondent as well as some other workers were taken on casual and daily wage basis to complete the project for making the land fit for afforestation. Might be that the respondent would have worked for nearly 8 to 9 years in the project as Douzer Helper and also completed 240 days continuous service, but there is nothing to demonstrate that the said post was created or sanctioned by the Government, against which, he was appointed either on merit or in the regular course. It is the specific contention of the Management that the services of this workman was engaged on daily wage basis for completion of the project and when the project was completed, necessarily, that would envisage that the services of the workman would not be required further. However, on completion of work, having regard to the nature of the work which the workman was entrusted in the project, and also when 25-F notice has not been issued to the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, necessarily, he should be suitably compensated. 12. In the circumstances, the Labour Court ought to have examined the fact that there is no post created or sanctioned against which, the respondent was appointed and this project is only for afforestation. Since the project is completed and Officers brought on deputation from the Government were sent back, the services of the persons who were temporarily appointed for the purpose of project also not required further. Of course, they would be compensated suitably as is envisaged by the Apex Court on such completion of the project and they cannot be left without remedy. Of course, they would be compensated suitably as is envisaged by the Apex Court on such completion of the project and they cannot be left without remedy. In the circumstances, even though the workman has put in 8 to 9 years of service and also he was not been issued with notice as required under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, it does not amount to retrenchment as per Section 2(o) (o) of the I.D. Act, and he would be compensated suitably. 13. In modification of the impugned award of reinstatement, it is ordered to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.