JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—In view of the office report dated 31.8.2010, service upon respondent No. 1 is deemed sufficient under Chapter-VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules. 2. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahjahanpur has filed this petition against an award of the Labour Court dated 25th May 1987, whereby the reference made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by the State Government, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 15/1985, has been answered in favour of the workman and against the employers. 3. The award is being challenged before this Court on the ground that in Nagar Palika Parishad requisite number of Tax Collectors were not available. Therefore, with the permission of the Commissioner, on year to year basis, appointments of Tax Collector was made. Under last permission approval granted by the Commissioner, with reference to his power under Section 70 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, expired on 30th June, 1978. Therefore, a letter was forwarded seeking further sanction, for extension of the appointment, to the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not extend the permission for temporary appointment. Therefore, under an order dated 17th August, 1979 the employment of the respondent workman was brought to an end w.e.f. 13.8.1979 alongwith other workmen. Against the same 9 persons preferred a petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, leading Claim Petition No. 1245/11/78. All the nine claim petitions were dismissed on 8th November, 2003 after recording that since the employees were workmen then must approach the Labour Court. Accordingly, the reference was made. The Labour Court under the impugned award has held that since the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service in previous calender year, their services could not be terminated without notice and compensation, as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Sundermani; 1976 ALJ 476. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages after holding that the termination of service was bad. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, on 13.9.1987 stayed the operation of the award with the condition that the petitioner shall reinstate the said respondent No. 1 within six weeks from today. 5. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages after holding that the termination of service was bad. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, on 13.9.1987 stayed the operation of the award with the condition that the petitioner shall reinstate the said respondent No. 1 within six weeks from today. 5. Counsel for the petitioner challenging the award contended that even assuming without admitting that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the previous year, there cannot be a direction for reinstatement although the termination may be held to be illegal, inasmuch as appointment on the post of Tax Collector in Nagar Palika is to be made in accordance with the statutory rules applicable and there is no pleading or finding of the Labour Court that such appointment of the respondent workman was made after following the statutory rules prescribed. In the facts of the case compensation should have been the proper remedy in place of reinstatement, as it permitted under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submits that there was no pleading of the workman concerned that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment and therefore payment of back wages is also illegal. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the records, this Court finds that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has substance. There is absolutely no finding under the impugned award that the appointment offered to the respondent workman was so done after following the statutory rules applicable in the matter of appointment on the post of Tax Collector in Nagar Palika. It is further not in dispute that the workman was offered appointment for the period mentioned in the appointment letter itself subject to the approval of the Commissioner as per Section 70 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam. Their services were put to an end, as no approval was granted by the Commissioner subsequent to 30th June, 1978. Therefore, even if there has been a violation of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court should have directed payment of compensation instead of directing reinstatement, inasmuch as no person can be appointed in a statutory corporation without following the statutory procedure prescribed. Therefore, even if there has been a violation of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court should have directed payment of compensation instead of directing reinstatement, inasmuch as no person can be appointed in a statutory corporation without following the statutory procedure prescribed. Similarly, this Court finds that there was no pleading that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment, nor any evidence was led for the purpose. In view of the aforesaid, the second part of the award, directing payment of full back wages also is not legally sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 25.5.1987 is hereby set aside. 8. Let the Labour Court reconsider the reference with regard to the relief which is to be granted to the workman concerned. The Labour Court shall take into consideration the services which the workman has discharged under the impugned order of this Court also for the purpose. With the aforesaid observation/direction the present writ petition is allowed. —————