JUDGMENT Ashish N. Trivedi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the Award dated 27.5.1986 (Annexure 10) made by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Reference Case No. 10 of 1985 holding that the retrenchment of 1,023 workmen is proper and justified and they are entitled to no relief and further that those 365 workmen who were arrested and sent to jail are not entitled to wages for the period of detention and answered the reference accordingly. The petitioner has prayed that the Award dated 27.5.1986 (Annexure 10) made by the Tribunal be quashed and the respondents be further commanded to reinstate the workmen and pay them all arrears of wages etc. in accordance with law and have also claimed certain consequential reliefs including a direction to the respondents to frame appropriate employment policy in relation to major Irrigation Projects in the State. 2. The Petitioner claims to be a Union of workmen formed in the year 1981 and had been espousing the cause and grievance of the workmen engaged in the Durgawati Jalashay Pariyojna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Project'). 3. The case of the petitioner is that earlier the engagement of 1023 workmen had been illegally retrenched by the order dated 21.2.1984 (Annexure 2) with effect from 22.2.1984 in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in pursuance of the communication contained in the letter dated 28.7.1983 (Annexure 1) on a misconceived ground that they had been engaged by the Officers who were neither authorised nor competent to do so. A Writ Petition was preferred on their behalf which was registered in this Court as C.W.J.C. No. 1439 of 1989 but was summarily dismissed and then the Apex Court by an order dated 1.6.1984 (Annexure 3) passed in Civil Appeal No. 2561 of 1984 set aside the order of this Court and remitted to this Court the matter to be decided on merits. 4. According to the petitioner, Rural Entitlements and Legal Support Centre, Bihar preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1439 of 1984 questioning the retrenchment of the workmen represented by the petitioner which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of S. Sarwar Ali, J. and B.P. Jha. J. by the judgment and order dated 30.8.1984 (1985 P.L.J.R. 150). 4. According to the petitioner, Rural Entitlements and Legal Support Centre, Bihar preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1439 of 1984 questioning the retrenchment of the workmen represented by the petitioner which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of S. Sarwar Ali, J. and B.P. Jha. J. by the judgment and order dated 30.8.1984 (1985 P.L.J.R. 150). The Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned orders of retrenchment were quashed as it was found that the retrenchment was in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act inasmuch as the conditions precedent to retrenchment, that is to say, payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice and compensation was not paid simultaneously but after retrenchment had come into effect. 5. Separate but concurrent opinions were delivered by S. Sarwar Ali, J. and B.P. Jha, J. The leading judgment is that of B.P. Jha, J. who relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s National Iron and Steel Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1206) held that violation of the conditions precedent of retrenchment renders the termination of the services void and accordingly quashed the impugned orders. S. Sarwar Ali, J. agreeing with the B.P. Jha, J. rejected the contention raised on behalf of the State that Section 25-F of the Act has no application where the appointments in question are illegally made or by the authority who has no power to make the appointment. S. Sarwar Ali, J. observed that it was not necessary to consider the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Narayan Singh vs. State of Bihar (1983 P.L.J.R. 687) in view of the fact that the definite case of the State in the Counter Affidavit was that it had been decided to terminate the services of the workmen after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. 6. Thereafter fresh order of retrenchment dated 15.10.1984 (Annexure 5) was issued and again 1023 workmen were retrenched but according to the petitioner they were not delivered the Bank Draft before the retrenchment came into effect. It is stated that the orders of retrenchment were based on the Circular dated 23.7.1975 (Annexure 6) which was arbitrarily invoked and this Circular had been superseded by the Government Notification No. 11/205/99/106 dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7). 7. It is stated that the orders of retrenchment were based on the Circular dated 23.7.1975 (Annexure 6) which was arbitrarily invoked and this Circular had been superseded by the Government Notification No. 11/205/99/106 dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7). 7. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Project has not come to an end and is still continuing. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17248 of 1984 under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court and from time to time various orders had been passed (Annexure 8 series). The Supreme Court directed the State Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal and formulated the terms of reference as follows :- (i) Whether the termination of the employment of the workmen of the Project was valid and lawful and if not, what relief they are entitled to ? (ii) Whether 365 workmen who were arrested by the police, are entitled to wages during the period when they were in detention ? 8. Eventually the State Government referred the two disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna. 9. Before the Tribunal the petitioner and the respondents exchanged their pleadings and on appreciation of evidence led by the parties and the submissions made on their behalf the Tribunal concluded that the retrenchment of the workmen was proper and justified and they were entitled to no relief and answered the reference by the impugned Award dated 27.5.1986 (Annexure 10) against the workmen. 10. Being aggrieved the petitioner on behalf of the workmen filed Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1989 in the Supreme Court and by the order dated 7.11.1989 the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition so as to enable the petitioner to move an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this Writ Petition. 11. 10. Being aggrieved the petitioner on behalf of the workmen filed Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1989 in the Supreme Court and by the order dated 7.11.1989 the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition so as to enable the petitioner to move an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this Writ Petition. 11. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-State, the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned Award have been supported and justified and it has been explained that the Project was started in the year 1976 in order to construct a Dam in which 1126 casual workers were engaged on muster roll by the local officers without any authorisation or sanction from the competent authority of whom 103 were displaced persons (because of the consequence of execution of the Project) and further that the impugned order of retrenchment is in absolute conformity with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act and the workmen were never engaged by any competent authority and when it came to the notice of the competent authority about the illegality, orders for retrenchment of such workmen were directed to be issued and also that some workmen are still continuing in the Project in view of their requirement in the project and they are either in the regular cadre or on daily wages under the Rehabilitation Scheme as such workmen are displaced persons and the workmen represented by the petitioner cannot claim parity with the displaced persons. 12. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the averments made in the Writ Petition have been reiterated. 12. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the averments made in the Writ Petition have been reiterated. It is further alleged that the letter dated 28.7.1983 (Annexure 1) from the Joint Secretary in the Irrigation Department to the State Government to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation (Mechanical), Patna does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case which was the basis of the earlier retrenchment order dated 21.2.1984 (Annexure 2) in which a direction was issued that all irregular muster roll appointments must be cancelled and further that the retrenched workmen were neither appointed by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) nor were working under him and further that the Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7) issued by the Chief Secretary to the State Government contains the policy of the State Government with regard to the retrenchment of workmen in various Projects and the retrenchment of the workmen represented by the petitioner is in contravention of the aforesaid Notification. 13. The petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of the Bihar P.W.D. Code, Volume I in support of the case that the power to make appointment in a Workcharged Establishment of a Project is vested with the authority which made their (Workmen's) appointments and is also in conformity with the Government Circular No. 308 dated 22.10.1984 and 30.10.1987 (Annexure 12) as also the Government Resolution No. 1036 dated 18.10.1993 (Annexure 12/1) in which the cut off date for retrenched employees and daily wagers in the Workcharged Establishments has been fixed as 1.8.1985. 14. It is also pointed out that Chandra Mohan Prasad Dusadh, Ram Pujan Ram Dusadh, Paras Lal Chamar, Shyam Lal Ram, Masdin Ansari Thunia and others had been appointed after the retrenchment of the workmen represented by the petitioner and Satya Narain Singh, Laxman Sah and Hiraman Sah are also displaced persons but have not been given appointment. 15. Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the decision of this Court in Rural Entitlements and Legal Support Centre (supra) it has conclusively been held that the engagement of the workmen represented by the petitioner was not illegal or incompetent and it is therefore not open to the State to urge that these workmen had been illegally engaged by an incompetent authority. Learned counsel then contended that the engagement of the workmen was illegally terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act in pursuance of the communication contained in the letter dated 8.10.1984 (Annexure 5) on a misconceived ground that the workmen had been engaged by incompetent and unauthorised officers. Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7) supersedes Annexure 5 and therefore the reason for retrenchment becomes non-existent. He then submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that the engagement of the workmen is illegal and their retrenchment is valid is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore the Award is liable to be set aside. The last submission of Mr. Prasad is that in view of the fact that the workmen represented by the petitioner after their engagement had put in long tenure of service and the retrenchment has caused severe hardships and loss of livelihood and it is in the fitness of things that the State be directed to frame an appropriate policy for the absorption of the workmen in the Project or elsewhere. 16: Mr. S.J. Rahman, learned G.P. VII appearing on behalf of the respondents-State contended that the decision of this Court in the Rural Entitlements and the Legal Support Centre (supra) only held that the retrenchment of the workmen was in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act and rejected the contention of the State that the appointment being illegal Section 25-F of the Act was not attracted to the facts of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had full opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal and the workmen's witnesses had admitted that they had received the Bank Draft simultaneously on the date on which their retrenchment had come into effect. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity and there is no error of fact or of law apparent on the face of record. 17. Having examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on the record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 18. 17. Having examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on the record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 18. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of this Court in Rural Entitlements and Legal Support Centre (supra) had conclusively decided the legality of the appointment of the workmen represented by the petitioner is untenable. As noticed above B.P. Jha, J. held that the orders of retrenchment were violative of the provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act inasumuch as conditions precedent of retrenchment had not been complied and therefore the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and accordingly the impugned orders were quashed. S. Sarwar Ali, J. while agreeing with B.P. Jha, J. rejected the contention of the State that it was not incumbent to adhere to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as the appointments were illegal because in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State the definite stand was that the retrenchment had to be made in strict compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is thus evident that no finding was recorded by the Division Bench that the appointments of the workmen were legal or illegal. 19. The second contention on behalf of the petitioner that the communication dated 8.10.1984 (Annexure-5) was based on a misconceived ground inasmuch as the same stood superseded by the Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7) issued by the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms in the name of the Governor and therefore the services of the workmen could not have been retrenched but a perusal of Annexure 5 shows that it refers to the Finance Department's letter No. 8954 dated 23.7.1975 (Annexure 6) in which the State Government imposed ban on the engagement on daily wages or in the Workcharged Establishment and the power to appoint vested in the local Officers had been withdrawn and that besides others, it was addressed to the Irrigation Commissioner, all Engineer-in-Chief, all Chief Engineers and all Deputy Chief Engineers bringing to their notice the directions contained in the letter nos. 6658 dated 4.6.1975 and 5815- V dated 17.6.1975 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government and reiterated that the instructions contained in the said letters be strictly adhered. 6658 dated 4.6.1975 and 5815- V dated 17.6.1975 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government and reiterated that the instructions contained in the said letters be strictly adhered. Annexure-6 further reveals that a meeting was held which was chaired by the Chief Minister on 9.6.1975 and various instructions were issued including that no further appointment of workcharged staff or muster roll staff in any of the Projects in the State be made and the power to appoint workcharged staff and muster roll staff has been withdrawn which was vested in the local officers. 20. There is no pleading to the effect in the Writ Petition that the workmen represented by the petitioner were appointed either on ad hoc or temporary basis against the temporary posts. On the contrary from the tenor of the Writ Petition it appears that the workmen were engaged on daily wages and from perusal of the testimony of workmen's witnesses before the Tribunal (Annexure 9 series) it is established that the workmen represented by the petitioner were engaged on daily wages and not against any temporary posts either on ad hoc or on temporary basis. The Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7) is with reference to ad hoc appointments in a Project on Class III and IV. temporary posts and it is in this context that it has been said that earlier orders and circulars stand superseded and the State Government has taken a decision with respect to the retrenched Class III and Class IV appointees on temporary posts whether they be Government employees or Semi Government employees. Annexure 7 further reveals that it does not envisage for rehabilitation, absorption or re-appointment of persons engaged on daily wages, although it provides that if a person is engaged as a casual labour then such engagement should not exceed 30 days and in case of necessity, prior approval of the Chief Engineer is to be taken who is competent only to extend the casual engagement for 90 days. 21. Thus the workmen represented by the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of Government Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7). 21. Thus the workmen represented by the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of Government Notification dated 5.9.1979 (Annexure 7). Besides perusal of Annexure 9 series (statements of the workmen's witnesses examined on their behalf before the Tribunal) would show that all the workmen had been engaged by the Superintending Engineer one Sri D.N. Mehta or one Sri Baldeoji and certain Executive Engineers and it is established from the workmen's testimony that all of them admitted that they had been engaged on daily wages after 23.7.1975. 22. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication contained in the letter dated 8.10.1984 (Annexure 5) is superseded by Annexure 7 nor does Annexure 7 purports to supersede the orders of the State Government contained in the letter dated 23.7.1975 (Annexure 6) which has been referred to in Annexure 5. It therefore cannot be said that the orders of retrenchment were based on misconceived grounds. 23. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record and therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside is also misconceived. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that they were denied opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal or that the principles of natural justice had been violated by the Tribunal in making the Award. 24. A perusal of the Award reveals that both the parties filed their Written Statements and their respective cases were thoroughly discussed as pleaded before the Tribunal. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties on appreciation of which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the mandatory pre-conditions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act have been fully complied with which finding is supported by the testimony of the witnesses of the workmen (Annexure 9 series). The workmen's witnesses further stated that notice for recruitment had been displayed on the Notice Board in the respective Offices but neither a copy of the notice was brought on record nor the original was summoned from the management. The workmen's witnesses admitted that they do not possess any appointment orders issued by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineers. 25. The workmen's witnesses admitted that they do not possess any appointment orders issued by the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineers. 25. The Tribunal held that Clause (c) of Section 25-F of the Act is merely directory and is not a condition precedent to retrenchment and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1617) in which it was held that the notice prescribed in Clause (c) of Section 25-F of the Act is a condition subsequent and is not a condition precedent to retrenchment. 26. The stand of the workmen that the retrenchment, if at all, had to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25-G of the Act which was not followed and therefore the retrenchment was invalid is without any basis. This contention of the workmen was rightly rejected by the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal held that no case has been made out by the workmen either in their pleadings or in the oral evidence led on their behalf to attract the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and the Tribunal further held that from Exhibit 7 it was evident that only 103 workmen were retained on daily wages for the reason that as a result of the construction of the Dam their villages would be washed away and were in the category of displaced persons. 27. The contention of the workmen before the Tribunal that there has been violation of Section 25-N of the Act was also rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Section 25-N is in Chapter V-B of the Act which contains 'Special Provisions relating to Layoff, Retrenchment and Closure in Certain Establishments'. Section 25-A of the Act of Chapter V-B provides for the applicability of the provisions contained in Chapter V-B which says that the provisions of Chapter V-B apply to an 'Industrial Establishment' (not being an Establishment of a seasonal character) or in which work is performed only intermittently in which not less than 100 workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding 12 months. Clause (a) of Section 25-L defines 'Industrial Establishment' to mean-(I) a factory as defined in Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, (II) a mine as defined in Clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Mines Act, (iii) a plantation as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantation Labour Act. Admittedly the workmen were not engaged in an 'Industrial Establishment' and therefore none of the provisions contained in Chapter VB of the Act have any application to the case of the workmen represented by the petitioner. 28. The Tribunal found as a fact that it was. not the case of the workmen that they were employed by Competent Authority nor was any such case made out by the workmen in their pleadings, on the contrary the management in their Written Statement had set out the details of the local Officers who had no authority to engage such a large number of workmen on muster roll. The witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen could not show that the local Officers who had engaged them had any authority to do so. As noticed above, it was stated by the workmen's witnesses that they had been engaged on daily wages by one Sri D.N. Mehta, Superintending Engineer and the Tribunal found that the then Superintending Engineer, Sri D.N. Mehta was facing departmental proceedings. 29. It is relevant to mention that the Supreme Court by the order dated 20.2.1985 (Annexure 8 series) called upon the State Government and the respondents before it to indicate the steps taken against the concerned Officers who, according to the respondents, were responsible for making irregular and unauthorised appointments of the workmen and certain other queries were also made which were required to be replied by the respondents by filing an Affidavit. A perusal of the order dated 2.4.1985 (Annexure 8 series) indicates that an Affidavit dated 23.7.1985 was filed on behalf of the respondents in which it was stated that the departmental action has been initiated against one Superintending Engineer and six Executive Engineers whose names had been set out in para 2, sub para (a) of the Affidavit and the Supreme Court therefore directed that the departmental proceeding must be promptly proceeded and completed within six months from the date of the order. It therefore appears that these seven Officers had without authority and competence, engaged the workmen represented by the petitioner on daily wages in the project and those were good reasons for the respondents to retrench the services of the workmen. 30. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been explained that 1126 persons were unauthorisedly engaged on daily wages by local officers without sanction and without authorisation from the competent authorities but 103 of them, being displaced persons who were affected because of the Project, had been retained as there was scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons. 31. In our opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with specially when these findings are based on evidence led by the parties and their pleadings. We have carefully examined the impugned Award and do not find any error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record so as to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari. 32. One more contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in Rules 59 and 60 and the Notes appended thereto of the Bihar P.W.D. Code, Volume I, the Authority who made the engagements of the workmen was clearly authorised. In our opinion, this contention has no merit as Rules 59 and 60 relate to workcharged Establishment and not to engagement on daily wages. Therefore the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the aforesaid provisions of the Bihar P.W.D. Code, Volume I. 33. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the workmen, consequent to their engagement had put in long tenure of services and their retrenchment had caused severe hardships and therefore the State may be directed to frame an appropriate policy for the absorption of the workmen in the Project or elsewhere. In support of his contention learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2130) and placed reliance on the following observations : "So far as the workcharged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. Piara Singh (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2130) and placed reliance on the following observations : "So far as the workcharged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stated by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job.." Their Lordships further observed that- "...The court must, while giving such directions, act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category". Their Lordships gave illustration of five instances, where it would not be expedient to give directions to the State Government mentioned above one of which is as follows :- "Many appointments may have been made irregularly as in this case-in the sense that the candidates were neither sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor were they appointed after issuing a proper advertisement calling for applications. In short, it may be a back door entry. A direction to regularise such appointments would only result in encouragement to such unhealthy practices." 34. In this context, keeping in view the facts of this case and the background in which the Project is being executed, it has to be examined whether a direction as prayed by the petitioner can be issued to the State Government. 35. Before the Tribunal the management examined two witnesses who were not cross-examined on behalf of the workmen on the main point stated by them. 35. Before the Tribunal the management examined two witnesses who were not cross-examined on behalf of the workmen on the main point stated by them. Analysing their evidence the Tribunal in the Award has observed that the works connected with the Project in question require the services of trained and skilled labours and it was not the case of the concerned workmen that they were trained persons and the works were being executed by contractors in accordance with the policy of the Government and in the interest of the works and also that there was no work for the concerned workmen, it could not be said that their works were allotted to the contractors and when there was no work for the workman it was not necessary to call them back after their first retrenchment which was set aside. The Tribunal also found that the State Government issued Invitation to Offer in response to which several tenders were received of which two were accepted and the contract was awarded to Bihar State Construction Corporation and Ajanta Construction Company who had to engage trained labourers and trained Engineers so that they may understand the drawing and the instructions of the Engineers. The Government Engineers had to supervise and remain vigilant that the work are being carried on strictly as per specification. It therefore appears that the entire work except some technical work such as survey etc. had to be done by the contractors themselves and for that purpose the untrained workmen represented by the petitioner were not suitable. 36. Moreover, it has been held that the engagement of the workmen was illegal and made by Officers who were not authorised and were not competent to make such engagements. In these circumstances, no such direction, as prayed by the petitioner can be issued to the State Government. 37. In view of the foregoing discussions we see no reason to interfere either with the orders of retrenchment of the workmen represented by the petitioner or in the Award made by the Tribunal. 38. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. I agree.