Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The respondents herein raised industrial disputes against the appellant herein before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and they were taken up as I.D.Nos.28 & 29 of 2000. They pleaded that the appellant engaged them as unskilled workers for a period exceeding 240 days in 12 calendar months, and at one stage, they approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.10267 of 1990 for regularization of their services. Their grievance was that even while that writ petition was pending, the appellant discontinued them, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). They prayed for the relief of reinstatement into service with back wages. The I.Ds. were opposed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondents were not engaged by them, and it was only the contractor, that engaged the respondents, that too, for a very limited period and for a specific purpose, and that the work entrusted to the contractor as well as to the respondents was concluded, just within 18 days. The Tribunal passed an award, dated 24.03.2003, refusing to grant any relief to the respondents. Aggrieved by that, the respondents filed W.P.No.14352 of 2003. Through order, dated 21.11.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the appellant to reinstate the respondents into service, with continuity of service and attendant benefits. The benefit of back wages was denied. The said order is challenged in this Writ Appeal. Sri D. Ravishankar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondents were never engaged by the appellant and the only occasion for the respondents to work in the appellant Organisation was, on being engaged by a contractor for a limited period of 18 days to complete the work. He submits that though the learned Single Judge himself took note of several judgments, such as the one in M/s. Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Limited Vs. Ram Niwas ( AIR 2002 SC 2495 ), Rajasthan Tourism Development Organisation Limited Vs. Intejam Ali Zafri ( (2006) 6 SCC 275 , etc, the relief was granted, contrary to the dicta in those judgments. Ram Niwas ( AIR 2002 SC 2495 ), Rajasthan Tourism Development Organisation Limited Vs. Intejam Ali Zafri ( (2006) 6 SCC 275 , etc, the relief was granted, contrary to the dicta in those judgments. Sri M. Surendra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though the Tribunal itself found that the respondents worked for more than 240 days in the appellant Organisation, it rejected the relief, on the ground that the retrenchment is, in accordance with law, and that the learned Single Judge has taken the correct view of the matter. He submits that the order under appeal does not warrant interference. The respondents claimed the relief, under Section 25-F of the Act, pleading that they have been engaged by the appellant for a period exceeding 240 days in a calendar year, but they were retrenched, without following the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant pleaded that it did not engage the respondents for any specific period, and it was only the contractor that engaged them, and that it availed the services of the respondents. The Tribunal took into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and recorded a finding to the effect that the respondents worked for a period exceeding 240 days in the appellant Organisation. The appellant did not challenge that finding and it virtually became final. The basis, on which the Tribunal denied the relief to the respondent, was the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (1998 (II) LLJ Page 50). The judgment is to the effect that if the appointment of employees is regulated by a set of rules, an employee, who is engaged in contravention of such rules, is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement, even if his retrenchment or discontinuance is in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a gigantic Organisation owned by the Government of India and it has got a comprehensive set of rules providing for appointment of employees of all the categories. It is only when an employee has been appointed as per the prescribed procedure and discontinued in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act, that the relief of reinstatement can be granted by the Tribunal. It is only when an employee has been appointed as per the prescribed procedure and discontinued in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act, that the relief of reinstatement can be granted by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi’ case has obviously taken into account the fact that wherever the appointments in an Organization are governed by a set of rules, it is only the appointments made, in accordance with such rules, that can be protected in law. In other words, if any person is engaged for any unforeseen or temporary or casual work, such person cannot be treated as part of work force nor can he be extended the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the judgment in Haryana State F.C.C.W. Stores’ case, duly extracting the relevant portion, but did not explain as to how the ratio of the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the case. We are of the view that the Tribunal has arrived at a correct conclusion and the order passed by the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases. Strictly speaking, the writ appeal must be allowed and the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. However, we are of the view that the respondents, who were engaged for fairly a long time in the appellant Organisation and have been pursuing the legal remedies for a period of about 1 ½ decades, need be compensated, though not as a measure of reinstatement or back wages. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, however, by awarding a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) each to the respondents payable, within two (2) months from today, by the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.