JUDGMENT List of cases has been revised. The learned counsel for the respondent is not present. The petitioner is aggrieved by the legality and validity of the award dated 26.8.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Haldwani in case no. 25/1993 whereby the Labour Court has directed respondent-workman no. 2 to be reinstated without any back wages. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that there was a permanent vacancy on the post of Sweeper, which remained vacant and, on account of exigency of work, the authority, by an order dated 12th May, 1986, appointed the respondent-workman on a temporary basis on the post of Sweeper till such time a regular sweeper was appointed under the rules. It transpires that based on the aforesaid appointment order, the respondent workman worked continuously till 31st March, 1989 when her services were orally terminated. The workman, being aggrieved by the termination order, being in violation of the provision of 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Haldwani. 3. Before the Labour Court, the employers took a stand that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis by an order da ted 12.5.1986 and that she had worked intermittently and had not work continuously and, therefore was not entitled for retrenchment compensation provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The employers further submitted that the services of the workman was never terminated on 31st March, 1989 and that the workman had only worked till 12.5.1988. Consequently, the reference order cannot be answered in affirmative. 4. The Labour Court, after considering the material brought on the record, gave a finding that the workman had worked till 31st of March, 1989. The Labour Court further gave finding that the workman worked for 240 days in a calendar year and was, therefore, required to be paid retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that retrenched compensation was not paid on or before the date of the termination of the services of the workman. The Labour Court held that retrenched compensation was not paid on or before the date of the termination of the services of the workman. Consequently, the said termination order was violated to the provision of Section 6-N of the :U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the order of termination was bad and illegal and that the workman was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service, the Labour Court however, declined to grant back wages. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment was temporary in nature and the workman was not entitled for reinstatement, since the initial appointment was against the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984. The learned counsel further submitted that appointments can only be made under the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984 and that a procedure has been prescribed for recruitment under the said regulations, which apparently has not been done. The learned counsel, consequently, submitted that in the absence of a regular appointment being made under the regulations, the initial appointment was ex facie illegal and consequently, the workman could not have been reinstated in service. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and others (2006) 1 SCC 667, wherein the Supreme Court held that when a post is not sanctioned, the direction for reinstatement should not be issued. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this court is of the opinion that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Regulations of 1984 has no application whatsoever. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on a sanctioned post, which could not be filled up for some reason or the other under the rules and regulations of the employers. Admittedly the respondent is a workman and once the workman has worked for over 240 days in a calendar year, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act automatically comes into play. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and no retrenchment compensation was paid. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and no retrenchment compensation was paid. The Labour Court consequently directed reinstatement of the workman on the post, on which the workman was working and, in the circumstances of the case did not grant any back wages. This court finds that the findings given by the Labour Court are findings of fact and are not perverse and does not require any interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.