JUDGMENT S.R.Singh, J. 1. National Thermal Power Corporation, in short 'the Corporation' is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a Public Sector Corporation with all its shares held by the President / Central Government. Amongst the main objects to be pursued by the Corporation is "to act as an agent of Government/Public Sector Financial institutions, to exercise all the rights and powers exercisable at any meeting of any Company engaged in the planning, investigation, research, design and preparation of preliminary, feasibility/and definite project reports, construction, generation operation and maintenance of Thermal Power Stations and Projects, transmission, distribution and sale of thermal power, in respect of any shares held by the Government, public financial institutions, nationalised banks, nationalised insurance Companies with a view to secure the most effective utilisation of the financial investments and loans in such companies and the most sufficient development of the concerned industries." Bir Bhadra Patel, the 3rd respondent (a workman employed in the Corporation), raised certain dispute through .National Thermal Power Corporation Employees' Union, Shaktinagar, District Sonbhadra, the 2nd respondent, on the basis of which following issues were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. Allahabad by the State Government in exercise of its power under section 4-K. of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide order of reference dated 8th September, 1988 - (1) Kaya sevayojako dwara apne Shramik Virendra Patel Putra Shri Brijman Patel Dresser Cum Compounder ko Rs. 650-980 ko vetan man diya jana chaheya ? Yadi ha to kiss thithi se ave kiss anya vivran sahit ? (2) Kay a sevayojako dwara apne Shraruik Virendra Patel Putra Shri Brijman Pattl Dresser cum Compounder ko esthaye na kiya jana uchit thatha / athva vaidhamik ha ? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit Shraruik kiss labhe chatipurti (Relief) pane ka Adhikari ha, kiss thithi se eva auya kiss viran sahit ? 2. On the basis of the aforesaid reference a case it being adjudication case No. 117 of 1988 was registered before the Industrial Tribunal (I) U. P. Allahabad, which made its award on 9-10-1990, and the same was published on 23-11-1990. The petitioner was directed by means of the said award to make the 3rd respondent permanent on the post of Dresser- cum-Compounder w.e.f. 2-2-1984 and to pay him the wages in the grade of Rs. 650-980 w.e.f. the said date viz 2-2-1984. The petitioner was directed by means of the said award to make the 3rd respondent permanent on the post of Dresser- cum-Compounder w.e.f. 2-2-1984 and to pay him the wages in the grade of Rs. 650-980 w.e.f. the said date viz 2-2-1984. The legality and validity of the said award has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, In his written statement of demand the workman contended that he was appointed on permanent basis as a dresser-cum-compounder in the hospital of the petitioner Corporation on 16-6-79 and his services were illegally terminated we.f 16-4-1984, whereupon his union got the matter referred to the Labour Court, for adjudication under section 4-K. of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute, it being Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1985, was decided in his favour on 27-2-1986 by the Industrial Tribunal, U. P. Allahabad and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other benefits. The award given by the Tribunal in the said adjudication case no. 58 of 1985 was affirmed by the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the employer vide order dated 16-7-1986. The employer, however, it was contended by the workman, re-instated him not as a regular employee but as a casual workman and not as dresser- cum- compounder but as a helper in dis-regard of the award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad in Adjudication case No. 58 of 1985. According to the workman this amounted to an act of unfair labour practice done by the employer and in the circumstances of the case he claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- as well as confirmation as dresser-cum-compounder w.e.f 240 days after 16-6-1979, which was the date of his initial appointment. 3. The defence set up by the employer to the demands of the workman was that he remained in their employment intermitently for different periods as semi-skilled casual workman between August, 1979 and 15th June, 1981 and even during this period he did not complete continuous service of one year during any 12 consecutive calendar months. 3. The defence set up by the employer to the demands of the workman was that he remained in their employment intermitently for different periods as semi-skilled casual workman between August, 1979 and 15th June, 1981 and even during this period he did not complete continuous service of one year during any 12 consecutive calendar months. According to the Employers, Bir Bhadra Patel the workman was employed by different contractors in contention with the work of the establishment after June, 1981 and during this period National Thermal Power Corporation or for that purpose Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station, Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, remained only his principal employer within the meaning of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and no relationship of employer and employee existed between them. According to the petitioners, dispute, if any, could be raised only against the contractor and not against the petitioner. 4. I have heard Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal for the respondent workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the legality and validity of impugned award has raised following contentions ; First, that the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner Corporation is the Central Government and the reference by the State Government under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction in as much as the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner being the Central Government, the reference could lawfully have been made only by the Central Government. The award, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is void for the reason that it has been given on an incompetent reference ; Secondly, that the award is vitiated for the reason that the Tribunal has illegally directed regularisation of the workman with retrospective effect even though he did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of dresser-cum-compounder, which has since been redesignated as Pharmacist. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the regularisation of the workman ordered by the Tribunal is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in that it results in denial of equal opportunity for being considered for the post, etc. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the regularisation of the workman ordered by the Tribunal is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in that it results in denial of equal opportunity for being considered for the post, etc. those, who were eligible and qualified for being appointed as Pharmacist in the establishment ; and Thirdly, that the award is invalid also for the reason that the Tribunal has ordered regularisation of the workman without considering the effect of the workman having not done any work attached to the post of dresser-cum- compounder/Pharmacist, at least after his re-instatement. The learned counsel for the respondent workman on the other hand contended before me that appropriate Government concerning the petitioner is the State Government within the meaning of section 2 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and within the meaning of term as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering Majdoor Union v State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 82 and that the reference made by the State Government, under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was perfectly valid. The learned counsel for the respondent workman further contended that the question of the reference being not made by the appropriate Government was not raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioner having lost the case from the Industrial Tribunal, is not entitled to raise the validity of the reference made by the State Government on the ground that it was not made by the appropriate Government. On the question of regularisation of the workman, the learned counsel for the respondent workman contended that In view of the finding given by the labour Court in adjudication case no. 58 of 1985 to the effect that Bir Bhadra Patel, the respondent workman, was working as dresser- cum-compounder in NTPC/SSTPP throughout until his services were terminated in the year 1984 and he believed himself to be in direct employment (on regular muster roll) of the Corporation and since he had been in the continuous employment of the Corporation as Pharmacist ever since February 2, 1981, the direction given by the Labour Court to its award dated 27-2-1986 for treating him as continuing in employment necessarily means hat he should be treated in the employment of the petitioner as dresser- cum-compounder redesignated as Pharmacist. The learned counsel further contended that the question of non-fulfilment of the requisite educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist, was relevant at the time of his initial appointment and not after he was allowed to work on the post for more than three years w.e.f. 2-2-1984 to atleast 15-4-1984, during which period the workman gained sufficient experience to enable him to claim regularisation on the post of Pharmacist even if he was not possessed of the requisite educational qualification. 5. Coming now to the first question raised by the petitioner 's learned counsel I find that section 2 (a) of the Central industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines appropriate Government to men the central Government in relation to any industrial disputes concerning any industry carried by or under the authority of the Central Government or by Railway Company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to industrial Dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5-A of the Dock Worker (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 or Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 or the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 etc. as enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 2 (a) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and State Government in relation to any other industrial disputes as per clause (ii) of section 2 (a) of the said Act. 6. The crucial question to be decided vis-a-vis the first question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is whether the petitioner Corporation is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of clause (1) of section 2 (a) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or is it an 'industry carried on by the Corporation incorporated under the Companies Act as distinct legal entity from its share holder viz. the President of India or the Central Government, In Heavy Engineering's case (supra), the Supreme Court while interpreting the expression "under the authority of" occuring in clause (i) of section 2 (a) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 observed as follows ;- "The word "under the authority of" mean pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a servant acts under or pursuant to the authority of his principal or master. Can the respondent company. Can the respondent company. therefore, be said to be carrying on its business pursuant to the authority of the Central Government ? That obviously cannot be said of a company incorporated under the Companies Act whose constitution, powers and functions are provided for and regulated by its memorandum of association and the articles of association An incorporated company, as is well known, has a separate existence and the law recognises it as a juristic person separate and distinct from its members. This new personality emerges from the moment of its incorporation and from that date the persons subscribing of its memorandum of association and others joining it as members are regarded as a body incorporate or a corporation aggregate and the new person begins to function as an entity, Soleman v. Saloman and Co., 1887 AC 22- Its rights and obligations are different from those of its share holders. Action taken against it does not directly affect its share-holders. The company in holding its property and carrying on its business is not the agent of its shareholders. An intringement of its rights does not give a cause of action to its shareholders. Consequently, it has been said that if a man trusts a corporation he trusts that legal person and must look to its assets for payment; he can call upon the individual share-holders to contribute only if the Act or Charter creating the corporation so provides. The liability of an individual member is not increased by the fact that he is the sole person beneficially interested in the property of the corporation and that the other members have become members merely for the purpose of enabling the corporation to become incorporated and possess only a nominal interest in its property or hold it in trust for him Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed. Vol. 9 p. 9. Such a company even possess the nationality of" the country under the laws of which it is incorporated, irrespective of the nationality of its members and does not cease to have the nationality even if in times of war if falls under enemy control. Jan-son v. Drieforntain Consolidated Mines, 1902 AC 484 and Kuenigl v. Donners Mark, 1955-1 QB 515. Such a company even possess the nationality of" the country under the laws of which it is incorporated, irrespective of the nationality of its members and does not cease to have the nationality even if in times of war if falls under enemy control. Jan-son v. Drieforntain Consolidated Mines, 1902 AC 484 and Kuenigl v. Donners Mark, 1955-1 QB 515. The company so incorporated derives its powers and functions from and by virtue of its memorandum of association and its articles of association therefore, the mere fact that the entire share capital of the respondent company was contributed by the Central Government and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government does not make any difference, The company and the shareholders being, as aforesaid, distinct entities the fact that the President of India and certain officers hold all its share does not make the company an agent either of the President or the Central Government." The Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering's ease (supra) went on to hold :-- "The question whether a corporation is an agent of the State must depend on the facts of each case. Where a statute setting up a Corporation so provides such a corporation can easily be identified as the agent of the State...........In absence of a statutory provision, however, a commercial corporation acting on its own behalf even though it is controlled wholly or partially by a government department will be ordinarily presumed not to be a servant or agent of the State " Learned counsel for the petitioner has not invited my attention to any statutory provision regulating the activities being carried on by the petitioner corporation and providing therein that the Corporation is an agent of the Central Government carrying on its activities under the authority of that Government, Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of association, so far as to which my attention was invited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no doubt suggests that the company while pursuing its objects is to act as an agent of the Government department besides financial institution but that by itself does not make the company an agent or servant of the Central Government, The Corporation being incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 may pursue governmental activities and may be the 'State or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramanna Daya Ram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SO 1688 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 .NC 487, but that by -itself may not attract the provisions of sub-sectioa (1) of section 2 (a) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the reference of dispute by the State Government under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act being incompetent and void is concerned, the learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka v. Workman General Secretary Karnataka Provident Fund Employees Union, 1984 SC 1897. That was a case where the activities being carried on under the provisions of Provident Funds Act were held to be activities being carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of section 2 (a; (ii) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme Court observed that : "The activity carried on by the Central Board or the State Boards under the Provident Funds Act is not similar to the activity carried on by private trade or manufacturing business like the one involved n the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdeor Union's case, AIR 1970 SC 82 (supra). The activity is one traceable to Article 43 of the Constitution which requires the State endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers agricultural or industrial or otherwise work a living wage, conditions of work ensuring the decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. It is a part of the programme every welfare Stats which our country,is. Institutions engaged in the matter of such high public interest or performing such high public functions as observed by Mathew, J in Sukhdeo Singh's case (supra) by virtue of their every nature performed governmental functions. They are truly the agents of the Government and they function under the authority of the Government as provided in the Statute because the Central Government could have, for the purpose of introducing the scheme of compulsory contribution to the provident fund set up an organisation or a department in absence of the corporate bodies envisaged in the Provident Funds Act." 7. Section 5-B (2) of the Provident Funds Act, the State Board contributed under the Act is an agent of the Central Government and in absence of the State Board, the Regional Committee constituted under paragraph 4 of the scheme is required to function under the control of the Central Board and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who is appointed by the Central Government is also under the control of the Central Board and the Central Government and it was in view of the provisions of the Provident Funds Act and the nature of the business carried on by the Central Board, State Board, Regional Committee and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, that the Supreme Court held that the Central Government was the 'appropriate Government' for the purposes of referring the dispute under section 10 of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case has no application to the facts of the present case, where the company incorporated under the Companies Act carries on its activities, though governmental in nature, in its independent capacity as a legal entity separate from the President of India or the Central Government, who may be holding all the shares of the company. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering's case (supra) is applicable. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly has no merits. 8. Now coming to the question of regularisation, the main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the concerned workman was never appointed as dresser-cum-compounder or Pharmacist on regular basis, nor is he possessed of requisite educational qualification for the post and that the mere fact that he was hold to be working on the said post by the Industrial Tribunal in the previous adjudication case no. 58 of 1985, would not entitle him to be declared as regular Pharmacist entitled to get the pay and other benefits admissible to the post of Pharmacist. 58 of 1985, would not entitle him to be declared as regular Pharmacist entitled to get the pay and other benefits admissible to the post of Pharmacist. In daily rated casual labour, Post and Telegraph Department v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 , the Supreme Court while emphasising the importance of man power vis-a-vis the obligation which the Stats has to Discharge has spelt out the basic philosophy of regularisation of temporary or casual labourers engaged in the task of production,and thereby contributing to the growth and development of the nation in the following words "India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain important obligations, which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of everyone who works to just and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and for family, the right of everyone without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to form trade unions and the light to join trade unions of one's choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that ail these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do not indicate the socialist go.A The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resour ces, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence o industrial peace throughout the country. of those rights the question o security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the Governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. Where in any justification to keep persons as casual labourers for years as is being done in the Postal and Telegraphs Department ? Is it for paying the lower wages ? Then it amounts to exploitation of labour. Is it because you do not know that there is enough work for the workers ? It cannot be so because there is so much of development to be carried out in the communications department that you need more workers. The employees belonging to skilled semi-skilled and unskilled classes can be shifted from one department to another even if there is no work to be done in a given place. Administrators should realise that if any worker remains idle on any day, the country loses the wealth that he would have produced during that day. Our wage-structure is such that a worker is always paid less than what he produces. So why allow people to remain idle, Any way they have got to be fed and clothed. Therefore, why don't we provide them with work. There are several types of work such as road making, railway construction, housing building, irrigation projects, communications etc. which have to be undertaken on a large scale. Development in these types of activities (even though they do not involve much foreign exchange) is not keeping pace with the needs of society. Therefore, why don't we provide them with work. There are several types of work such as road making, railway construction, housing building, irrigation projects, communications etc. which have to be undertaken on a large scale. Development in these types of activities (even though they do not involve much foreign exchange) is not keeping pace with the needs of society. We are saying all this only to make the people understand the need for better management of man power (which is a decaying asset) the non-utilisation of winch leads to the inevitable loss of valuable human resources. Let us remember the slogan : "Produce or Perish". It is not an empty slogan. We fail to produce more at our own peril. It is against this background that we say that non-regularisation of temporary employees or casual labour for a long period is not a wise policy. We, therefore, direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Post and Telegraph Department. 9. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :- "Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be recknoned with, but it is so at the time i of initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. IN our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short periods created by the respondent in the circumstances would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three ears period. IN our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short periods created by the respondent in the circumstances would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three ears period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three ears' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior most workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders". 10. A number of other authorities were cited by the parties learned counsel on the point of regularisation of temporary/casual employees to which I need not advert because the trend of the recent decision of the Supreme Court is inclined towards providing security in service by regularising the casual employees within a reasonable period, which according to the Supreme Court's declaration is the constitutional goal to be achieved in a socialist republic. In view of this the second and third contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner too do not appeal to me on merits and I find that the Labour Court in its award dated 27-2-1986 given in adjudication case no. 58 of 1985 had intended re-instatement of the concerned workman on the post of dresser-cum-compoundet/Pharmacist, on which post he had worked until his services were terminated in 1984. The petitioners were not justified in taking the same very stand, which was rejected by the Labour Court in earlier adjudication case No. 58 of 1985 lor not giving the work of Pharmacist to the workman after his re-instatement pursuant to .the award dated 27-2-1986. The petitioners were not justified in taking the same very stand, which was rejected by the Labour Court in earlier adjudication case No. 58 of 1985 lor not giving the work of Pharmacist to the workman after his re-instatement pursuant to .the award dated 27-2-1986. The petitioner Corporation cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own lapse and to say that the workman having not performed any duty of Pharmacist after his re-instatement would be entitled to be regularised w.e.f. 2-2-1984, the date on which he completed three years of service as dresser- cum- compounder entitling him to claim regularisation on the post in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 ; and Daily rated casual labour, Post and Telegraph Department v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 . The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the regularisation, if done, pursuant to the award would result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution dots not appeal to me for the reason that the petitioner cannot be permitted to false this question in the second adjudication case giving rise to the present writ petition by the strength of the principles of res-judicata and also for the reason that point could be raised only by third persons and not by the petitioner employer. The concerned workman in fact acquired a right of being regulari sed on the post of Pharmacist in view of the award dated 27-2-1986 given in his favour in the earlier adjudication case No. 58 of 1985, which has become final and is binding on the parties. In view of the aforesaid discussions the petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.