JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This intra Court Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44256 of 1992, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner - respondent Awadhesh Verma and has ordered that he be reinstated in service and his claim for regularisation be considered by the appellant-opposite parties -Mandi Samiti. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has approached this Court by way of this Special Appeal. We have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner- respondent, and perused the record. 3. The background of the case in brief is that petitioner- respondent Awadhesh Verma was appointed as a clerk cum typist on daily wages in the office of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad on 1.8.1987 and continued up to 11.3.1988. Thereafter was appointed from 6.8.1988 to 31.8.1991 in the same office and again on 1.12.1995 he was appointed on Muster Roll in the office of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Shahjahanpur, where he worked till 31.3.1998 but thereafter his services were terminated. The petitioner- respondent filed a writ petition claiming that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year as such his services could not have been dispensed with, without following the procedure of law, prescribed in Section 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Hence he is entitled for reinstatement in service and also for regularisation. The writ petition filed by the petitioner- respondent was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.1.2000. The relevant portion is reproduced below : “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without following the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as the Mandi Parishad has been held as an industry and the petitioner is a workman. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 7887 of 1997 (Lucknow Bench) decided on 26.9.1999, in which this Court has held that the Mandi Parishad is an industry and the Court found vio0lation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the petitioner of that writ petition reinstated and also directed for regularisation. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 7887 of 1997 (Lucknow Bench) decided on 26.9.1999, in which this Court has held that the Mandi Parishad is an industry and the Court found vio0lation of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the petitioner of that writ petition reinstated and also directed for regularisation. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed Clerk-Typist on daily wages and has worked for more than 240 days and the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. Section 6N is at par with the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has held that in case an order is passed in violation of under Section 25F of the Act, the relationship of master and servant did not snap and the order of termination is void ab initio as has been held in the case of Lal Mohd. and others v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd., 1999(1) SCC 596 . In view of the above law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed. The order of termination, if any, is set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in the service and the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.” 4. In the instant Special Appeal, the Mandi Parishad has challenged the correctness and legality of the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act do not apply in this case because the petitioner- respondent was employed in Construction Division, which is not rendering any service. Hence it is not an Industry. Further, employment of the petitioner- respondent was subject to 2% of the cost of the project. He was not getting salary from the establishment. He was getting salary from contingency fund. His appointment was not against any particular post. There was no sanctioned post on which he was working. Therefore, his work was peripheral and he could continue till there was work and such employees have no right to claim continuation of their services. He was not getting salary from the establishment. He was getting salary from contingency fund. His appointment was not against any particular post. There was no sanctioned post on which he was working. Therefore, his work was peripheral and he could continue till there was work and such employees have no right to claim continuation of their services. Therefore, neither relief of regularisation nor of reinstatement could have been granted to the petitioner- respondent, but the learned writ Court, without considering the aforesaid facts has wrongly allowed the writ petition vide the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. 5. The petitioner-respondent has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit in this Special Appeal with some additional evidence, which were not available to him at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner- respondent, in this affidavit has alleged that several persons who were appointed in the like manner as of the petitioner- respondent during the same period between 1983 and 1995, have been regularized by the respondent- appellant Parishad and the petitioner alone has been singled out and subjected to hostile discrimination. It is further stated that in the 56th meeting of the Board held on 24.10.1989/3.11.1989 as well as in the 57th meeting held on 20.6.1990 it was resolved that services of the similarly circumstanced typist/clerk to be regularized. In pursuance of that resolution the services of similarly placed typists/clerks have been regularized. The petitioner- respondent has annexed a copy of the order dated 20.6.1990 with his affidavit. He has further alleged that one Krishna Kumar, who was junior to him was also included in this list but he was deprived of the benefit of regularization due to illegal discrimination. 6. The appellant Mandi Parishad has filed supplementary rejoinder-affidavit but there is no satisfactory answer in it with regard to the allegation of discrimination. 7. It is relevant to mention that during the course of arguments Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mandi Parishad, had made a statement at Bar that the case of petitioner- respondent for regularization is going to be considered by Mandi Parishad. In view of above on 22.1.2015 the following order was passed by this Court : “Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that juniors to the respondent have been regularized in service and only the services of the respondent have not been regularized. In view of above on 22.1.2015 the following order was passed by this Court : “Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that juniors to the respondent have been regularized in service and only the services of the respondent have not been regularized. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has consulted his client and he has been informed that in view of the fact that juniors to the respondent have been regularized in service, the case of the respondent for regularization is going to be considered by the department. Let this fact be brought on record by 27.1.2015. Put up on 27.1.2015.” On the next date i.e. 27.1.2015 this Court passed the following order : “The case was taken up on 22.1.2015 and the following order was passed : “Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that juniors to the respondent have been regularized in service and only the services of the respondent have not been regularized. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has consulted his client and he has been informed that in view of the fact that juniors to the respondent have been regularized in service, the case of the respondent for regularization is going to be considered by the department. Let this fact be brought on record by 27.1.2015. Put up on 27.1.2015.” Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he was not able to take instructions from the Deputy Director (Construction) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Bareilly, where the petitioner-respondent was working after his transfer from Shahjahanpur and, therefore, the case may be passed over for the day. Put up on 29.1.2015.” 8. Be that as it may, from the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellants have not followed the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which are mandatory and para materia to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the employee is entitled to relief of reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with direction to the appellants to reinstate the petitioner- respondent in service and to consider his case for regularization within one month from today as per the direction given by the writ Court. Therefore, the employee is entitled to relief of reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with direction to the appellants to reinstate the petitioner- respondent in service and to consider his case for regularization within one month from today as per the direction given by the writ Court. So far as the order of the writ Court with regard to denial of back wages to the petitioner is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be affirmed. Considering that the petitioner- respondent has not worked during the period falling between the date of his termination till the date when he will be reinstated it is provided that he will not get any back wages for such period. No orders as to costs. —————