Order The present petition has been preferred against the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro dated 20th February, 2004 in Reference Case No. 13 of 1991, whereby, it has been held that the workmen, namely, Manshu Chandra Tuddu, Bikas Chandra Ojha and Ram Nath Tiwari, represented through the present petitioner, are not entitled to any relief and the reference was accordingly answered. Thus, the services of the workmen, represented by the present petitioner, which were terminated by the respondent-Management has been held as valid one. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two of the aforesaid workmen, namely, Bikash Chandra Ojha and Ram Nath Tiwary, were appointed as Tax Daroga vide order dated 21st June, 1986 (Annexure-1 to the memo• of petition) whereas Manshu Chandra Tudu was appointed on 16th August, 1986. Thereafter, the services of the aforesaid three workmen were terminated with effect from •30th January, 1988 on the ground that only one post of Tax Daroga was sanctioned by the Government, which was already being held by one Pradeep Kumar. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen were appointed in accordance with law and no notice was given as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the termination of the services of the workmen is illegal and, therefore the workmen ought to have been reinstated with all full back wages. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court and, hence, the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1, who has submitted that in fact, one Pradeep Kumar was appointed on the post of Tax Daroga, who was already continuing on the post in pursuance of the judgment dated 16.5.1990, passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court and, thus, their being only one sanctioned post of Tax Daroga, the services of these three workmen have been terminated as the post of Tax Daroga was not sanctioned for more than one person. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that the document at Exhibit-M/2 was presented before the Labour Court, which reveals the fact that there is only one sanctioned post of Tax Daroga, whereas, three more persons were appointed as Tax Darogas and, therefore, services of these workmen were brought to an end. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, has rightly appreciated the fact that these workmen were appointed on the post of Tax Daroga in violation of the fact that there was only one sanctioned post of Tax Daroga as per the document at Exhibit-M/2. In view of these facts, it is submitted that no error has been committed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in passing the award dated 20th February, 2004. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is also relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., as reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC)282], especially paragraphs *46, 47 and 48 of the said judgment. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the evidence on record, it appears that there is only one sanctioned post of Tax Daroga, whereas, three persons were appointed by the Chas Municipality. These facts are clear from the appointment letter of two of the workmen, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition and, therefore, services of two Tax Darogas, who are at serial nos. 3 and 4 have been rightly terminated by the respondents with effect from 30th January, 1988. Looking to the evidence on record, especially Exhibit-M-2, it appears that no error has been committed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in holding that there is no illegality in terminating the services of these workmen, once the post is not sanctioned by the Government. Looking to the document at Exhibit- M-2, it appears that the appointment of the workmen, represented through the present petitioner is do hors the law. Once the appointment is de hors the law, it has been rightly held that the provision of Section 25F is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Looking to the document at Exhibit- M-2, it appears that the appointment of the workmen, represented through the present petitioner is do hors the law. Once the appointment is de hors the law, it has been rightly held that the provision of Section 25F is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The appointments of two persons were illegal and not irregular. Once there is' illegality in appointment, provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. Looking to this fact and also looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 [ : 2006(2) JLJR (SC)282], the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro is absolutely true, correct and in consonance with the facts and law. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the findings and the award passed by the Labour Court. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.