ORDER : We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 26th August, 2009 in W.P. NO.1196 of 2004, whereby the High Court has set aside Award dated 26th April, 2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in Case No.6 of 2002. 3. The facts in nutshell are as follows. The appellant raised an industrial dispute that was referred to for adjudication to the Industrial Court. Prayer for regularisation of the appellant was made to the respondent-Commission on 23/26.07.1989. 4. The workman claimed, that he was engaged, in the year 1981, in Splints and Veneers factory, Kashipur, which manufactured matchsticks and matchboxes at the relevant point of time. He further claimed to have completed 240 days of service in the year 1983, and that he had been continuously working, but that his service had not been regularised. A settlement had been arrived at on 23rd July, 1989 to the effect that workmen, who had completed service of 240 days, shall be regularised. Consequently, services of appellant's juniors had been regularised whereas, he was discriminated against. 5. The employer contended that Ramesh Chandra Singh, the appellant herein, had been a daily-wage employee in Splints and Veneers factory. The establishment, where he had been employed, was closed in the year 1990, and no manufacturing activities are being carried out in the said establishment as a result of which, no benefit was earned by the said establishment. The workman had been engaged as a watchman, on daily-wage. Thus, he was not entitled to relief for regularisation. Earlier, workman worked as a machine operator, but now he has been reinstated as a watchman. The said establishment is under the control of the Khadi and Village Industry Commission. Splints and Veneers factory was an establishment of Government of India. 6. The Labour Court has found that the workman had completed service of 23 years and his service ought to have been regularized; the action taken by the employer was found to illegal. He was retrenched from service in the year 1986, but reinstated in 1996, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. Thereafter, he had been working as a watchman. The workman is rendering his service as a watchman. He was retrenched from service in the year 1986, but reinstated in 1996, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. Thereafter, he had been working as a watchman. The workman is rendering his service as a watchman. As on 1st April, 2001, more than 5 years' services had been rendered by him, after reinstatement on 29th March, 1996. The direction was issued by the Industrial Court to regularise his service from 1st April, 2001. However, the High Court held, that the appellant was not entitled to regularization, as mere completion of five years' service was not enough for the purpose of regularization of services. Consequently, the award of Industrial Court was set aside by the High Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal has been preferred by the workman. 7. In our opinion, there was a clear finding by the Industrial Court that the appellant had been in service for the last 23 years. He was appointed in the manufacturing establishment in July 1981. Obviously, he was initially engaged as machine operator but, he was illegally retrenched from service on 9th August, 1986. On 29th March, 1996 he was reinstated and continuity of service was granted. He was reinstated as a watchman and, since then, he had been continuing in service. Thus, by now he is in service for approximately 37 years. 8. The High Court has erred in observing that only a 5-year service has been rendered by the appellant. As a matter of fact, between 1981 and 1986, he has rendered the service as a machine operator and, thereafter, he was illegally removed from service. Ultimately, removal was held to be illegal, and continuity in service and all benefits had been granted to him. In fact, he is deemed to be in service even during interregnum period of 1986 to 1996, and in the eye of law there was no break in his services. 9. In the light of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , regularisation was required to be made as a one-time measure. In the case of Uma Devi (supra) this Court vide para 53' observed : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. 9. In the light of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , regularisation was required to be made as a one-time measure. In the case of Uma Devi (supra) this Court vide para 53' observed : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ) and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 10. In our considered view, it was not a case of illegal appointment only irregular one. Considering the fact, that the appellant is in the service, and there are several establishments of Khadi and Village Industry Commission, services of the appellant can be accommodated at any place. In our considered view, it was not a case of illegal appointment only irregular one. Considering the fact, that the appellant is in the service, and there are several establishments of Khadi and Village Industry Commission, services of the appellant can be accommodated at any place. Thus, we restore the Award passed by the Industrial Court, and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. 11. Let order be complied with within three months from today and benefits be extended as per the award of the Industrial Court. The appeal is allowed. No costs.