Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Labour Court-Ill, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him entitled to no relief against the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1995 as Tubewell Helper on daily wage basis. He continued with respondent No.2 till 14.06.1996, which he termed as a date on which, in a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, status quo order was passed by the said Court till the same was vacated vide order dated 22.08.1998. He contends that during this period i.e. from 01.09.1995 to 14.06.1996, the workman had worked for 288 days with respondent No.2. His submission is based on the basis of the certificate Ex.WW-1/A wherein it has been certified by respondent No.2 that the workman had worked with them from September, 1995 to March, 1996 for a period of 213 days. After 31.03.1996, the petitioner admittedly worked with respondent No.2 till 14.06.1996 voluntarily without any stay order in his favour. If this period is also counted, the total period comes to 288 days. This assertion was made by the counsel on 12.03.2010 and counsel for respondent No.2 had sought time to verify this aspect. Accordingly, an affidavit of Sh. Anand Swaroop, Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has been filed through CM. No.7850 of 2010, wherein this factual aspect has been admitted. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had not completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said findings are set aside. 2. Now the question arises as to what relief the petitioner-workman would be entitled to. It is an admitted position that the workman was appointed on daily wage basis with respondent No.2 and his appointment was not as per the statutory Rules governing the service or in consonance with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That being so, the petitioner-workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service as the post, on which the workman was appointed, is a public post. 3. That being so, the petitioner-workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service as the post, on which the workman was appointed, is a public post. 3. Reference at this stage can be made to the judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghazibad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraulal ( 2008)1 S.C.C. 575, MP. Administration v. Tribhuwan,3 (2007)9 S.C.C. 748, State of MP. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007)1 S.C.C. 575 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another;5 2006(11) S.C.C. 684. But thereafter, the Honble Supreme Court, faced with the situation as in the present case where the termination of the workman was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act but his appointment was dehors the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, ordered payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Reference can be made to a judgment of the Honble Su- preme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb,6 2008(4) S.C.T. 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. Accordingly, it is held that the workman would be entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service as his termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The present writ petition is allowed. The Award dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Labour Court-Ill, Faridabad, is hereby set aside. 5. The termination of the services of the petitioner-workman is held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but keeping in view the fact that the appointment of the petitioner-workman was dehors the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the post, on which he was initially appointed, is a public post, the workman is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others v, Keshab Deb (supra ) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh (supra). 6. 6. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 to release the amount of compensation, as assessed by this Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.Petition partly allowed