JUDGMENT 1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challening the award dated 02.08.2010 passed by Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.19/2005, whereby, learned Tribunal answered the reference No.F1(1)1758 LD/2004 dated 10.02.2005 in favour of the workman-respondent and held that non-regularisation and non-payment of salary and allowance by the petitioner Housing Board to the respondent-workman is not proper and legal and workman-respondent is entitled to be reghularized on the post upon which he was initially appointed alongwith regular pay and allowances for the post of Junior Assistant from the date of his regularization. 2. As per facts of the case, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman for regularisation and for granting regular pay-scale for the post of Junior Assistant. The workman-respondent was initially appointed on the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the petitioner on 01.11.1999 for a period of six months on monthly salary of Rs. 1800/-. The workman-respondent joined his duties on 04.11.1999 and since then he was continuously working on the said post but his services were not regularised nor he was allowed regular payscale. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for reference and following reference was made by the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 10.02.2005 : " D;k Jfed Jh jkds'k O;kl iq= Jh fnus'k pUnz O;kl ( ftldk izfrfuf/kRo ftyk la;qDr ea=h ,oa ftyk ea=h Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k lh0,l0@176 f'kokth uxj ikyj us fd;k gS ) dks mlds fu;kstd vkoklh; vfHk;Urk] jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ikyh }kj dfu"B lgk;d ds in ij fu;fer dj osru HkRrs vkfn ugha fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSa\;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ " 3. Upon reference being received by the Labour Court, notices were issued and respondent-workman filed his claim before the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur and submitted that he is working on the post of Junior Assistant at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month since 04.11.1999 and the initial appointment was made for six months. Later on, it was ordered that services of the petitioner are hereby extended till further orders. 1800/- per month since 04.11.1999 and the initial appointment was made for six months. Later on, it was ordered that services of the petitioner are hereby extended till further orders. In the claim petition, it was specifically pleaded that post of Junior Assistant is in existence and as per his continuous service since 04.11.1999 the workman is entitled for regularisation and regular pay-scale for the post of Junior Assistant. 4. A reply to the claim was filed by the petitioner Housing Board, in which, it is specifically pleaded that the workman was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on contract basis and his appointment was not regular appointment. The said appointment was made due to rush of work and earlier deductions towards PF were made, but, later on, it was stopped. After filing reply by the petitioner Housing Board before the Labour Court, opportunity to lead evidence was granted to both the parties by the Labour Court. In support of the claim, the respondent workman filed his own affidavit and affidavit of one Dharmendra Mathur, upon which, cross-examination was made and, in all, 65 documents were produced in support of the claim by the respondent-workman. On behalf of the petitioner Housing Board, affidavit of R.C. Rayal and H.R. Nawal were filed but R.C. Rayal did not appear for cross-examination, and, thereafter, final arguments were heard. Learned Judge, Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence and judgment of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman vide award dated 02.08.2010, which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the award impugned is patently illegal because the learned Judge, Labour Court has committed gross error of law while following the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is further argued that the appointment was made on contractual basis for temporary period but it was extended till further orders, therefore, it is obvious that the appointment was not made after following the procedure laid down in the rules. It is further argued that the appointment was made on contractual basis for temporary period but it was extended till further orders, therefore, it is obvious that the appointment was not made after following the procedure laid down in the rules. Therefore, as per judgment of the apex Court, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Others , the award impugned deserves to be quashed because the workman is not entitled for regularisation on the post of Junior Assistant as his appointment was irregular. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman vehemently argued that the award is perfectly in consonance with law and learned Labour Court has rightly arrived at the finding that workman is entitled for regularisation of his services on the post of Junior Assistant because he is continuously working for last ten years and as per para 53 of the judgment rendered in Uma Devi's case (supra), the respondent-workman has rightly been held entitled for regularization. 7. I have considered rival submissions made by both the parties. 8. In this case, it is not disputed by the petitioner Housing Board that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Junior Assistant. It is also not disputed that the services of the respondent-workman was extended after providing the first appointment for six months. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-workman is performing the duties of Junior Assistant in the Housing Board at Pali. The only contention is that appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the rules, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization. In my opinion, the award impugned does not require any interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India because at the time of appointment the post of Junior Assistant was in existence and appointment was made initially on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and, admittedly, the term of appointment was extended till further orders, meaning thereby, the post was in existence and respondent-workman was possessing all qualifications for the post and the day on which the reference was answered, admittedly, the respondent-workman completed more than ten years of service. It is true that in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court that no regularisation can be ordered if the appointment is by way of back-door entry. 9. Here, in this case, it is nowhere pleaded by the petitioner Housing Board before the Labour Court that appointment was obtained by illegal means or the appointment was back-door entry. More so, it is pleaded that initially the appointment was made for six months on contractual basis and, later on, appointment was extended till further orders. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not performing duties of the post of Junior Assistant, meaning thereby, the finding of the learned Labour Court cannot be termed as illegal because recently Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Karnataka & Others v. M.L. Kesari & Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 , that as per para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case regularisation can be made if the person is qualified and appointed against the sanctioned post without following process of open competition if he has completed ten years of service. Para 7 of the said judgment is as follows : "The exception contained in para 53 of Umadevi case, (2006) 4 SCC 1 is applicable, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. The State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." 10. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." 10. In this view of the matter, learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the award because no plea was taken by the petitioner Board before the Tribunal that respondent-applicant's appointment was illegal or he was not possessing the qualification for the post or that no vacancy was in existence, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 , finding given by the Labour Court does not require any interference. 11. As a result of the foregoing discussion and while following above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******