JUDGMENT : Satish Kumar Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 844 of 2012 and 928 of 2012, which have been filed by the management against the judgment dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby two separate writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, have been dismissed. Though these appeals are barred by limitation, and along with the appeals, the appellants have filed two separate applications (C.M. Nos. 2250 of 2012 and 2464 of 2012) for condonation of 35 days delay each in filing the appeals, yet without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge as well as the awards dated 28.10.2011 made by the Industrial Tribunal. The facts are taken from L.P.A.. No. 844 of 2012. 2. In the present case, the respondent-workman was appointed as Sewadar/Peon on 19.2.1988. His services were terminated on 31.3.2001 without any notice, charge-sheet etc. or without paying retrenchment compensation. On reference sought by the workman, the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the industrial dispute and found that the management terminated the services of the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Consequently, the termination of the services of the workman was held to be illegal and unlawful, and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service with 50% back wages. 3. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was hotly contested by the management: that the reference made by the Government was not maintainable as the workman could have raised his dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Society and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the dispute in view of Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the said contention while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble. Supreme Court in Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Workers Union, (2006) 110 FLR 1010 , the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2001) 3 LLJ 308 ) and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Manakdheri Co-op. Agricultural Service Society Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, (2011) 1 LLJ 453 . 4. State of Haryana and Others, (2001) 3 LLJ 308 ) and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Manakdheri Co-op. Agricultural Service Society Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, (2011) 1 LLJ 453 . 4. On the issue of termination, it was found as a fact that the termination of services of the workman was neither justified nor was in order as the same was done without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act. The learned single Judge has upheld the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 5. In these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service with 50% back wages. It has been argued that the respondent-workman was working only on ad hoc basis and was not a regular employee, therefore, his reinstatement was not justifiable. According to the learned counsel, instead of reinstatement in service, the Industrial Tribunal should have awarded suitable compensation to both the workmen. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Division No. 2, Sonipat v. Ishwar Singh and Another, 2008 (3) SCT 788 where this Court has held that a daily wage employee, even in case there is no-compliance of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Act, is not entitled to reinstatement but would be entitled to compensation. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel. 6. The respondent-workman was working as Sewadar/Peon on ad hoc basis. It is further undisputed position that before terminating his services, neither any enquiry was held nor any notice was given to him. Further, no retrenchment compensation was given to him at the time of terminating his services. Therefore, his termination was wholly unjustified and can be termed as nullity as has been held in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Further, no retrenchment compensation was given to him at the time of terminating his services. Therefore, his termination was wholly unjustified and can be termed as nullity as has been held in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), (2010) 125 FLR 629 wherein it has been held that the termination of the service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity, and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that keeping in view the fact that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the appellant-Society, he should not be reinstated, and instead thereof, a suitable compensation be awarded to him, cannot be accepted. As per the stand of the appellant-Society, the respondent-workman was appointed as Sewadar/Peon on ad hoc basis. It is not the case of the appellant-Society that the initial appointment of the respondent-workman was back door entry. In Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, AIR 2010 SC 1116 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the stock plea raised by the public employer in cases of illegal termination/retrenchment of the workman is that the initial employment/engagement of the workman/employee was contrary to the rules or that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The Courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. It needs no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his constitutional and fundamental rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. It needs no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his constitutional and fundamental rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore, the approach of the Courts must be compatible with the Constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forth by the employer. In view of the above legal position and in these facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order of the learned single Judge. In our view, in these facts, compensation in lieu of reinstatement cannot be ordered on the plea of the appellant-Society that the reinstatement of the workman would put unbearable burden on the financial health of the appellant-Society. Thus, finding no merit in both the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed.