Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. Since the issue raised is one and the same in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 15915, 15916, 16405, 16786, 17318, 18092 of 1999, 3102, 3786, 4271, 5934 and 7977 of 2000 have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz. Management of Air India Ltd., not to indulge in the practice of employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90 days and ousting them thereafter and in particular direct the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme for regular absorption of the workmen like the petitioners and consequently direct the fourth respondent - District Employment Officer, Kancheepuram to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange, so as to preserve their seniority in the event of such of the petitioners who do not get regularisation on the framing of the Scheme. Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 17267, 17387, 19769 of 1999, 101, 165, 174, 175, 1752, 2102, 2217, 2711, 3591, 3758, 5697 and 5924 of 2000 have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme for regularisation of the daily rated employees engaged in the Catering Department, Engineering Department and ground Support Department of Air India Ltd., at the International Airport at Madras prior to this date and pending framing of the scheme utilise the labour engaged in the past including the petitioners herein. Petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 173 to 175, 2814 and 4624 of 2000 have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/management to reinstate the petitioners with other benefits in accordance with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991, dated May 15, 1997. The case of the petitioner is briefly slated hereunder : The Air India operates International flights and several flights originate or transit through Madras Airport. It also handles the luggage and baggage and offers, other facilities for other international carriers such as British Airways, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Lufthansa, etc. Number of workers are employed by Air India for the purpose of handling the luggage checked in by the passenger and for loading them into containers and also for certain other operations like loading and unloading of cargo, etc. Number of workers are employed by Air India for the purpose of handling the luggage checked in by the passenger and for loading them into containers and also for certain other operations like loading and unloading of cargo, etc. For the said purpose Air India was engaging workmen on daily rated basis and engaging them for a period of 90 days and terminating them from service thereafter. If the vacancies so caused, once again Air India calls for applications from the Employment Exchange and again engages them for 90 days and repeat the same process. The work requirement of Air India is one of permanent and perennial nature, Air India engages workmen for short durations to deny them the benefit of permanency and other consequential benefits. A number of workmen who were so engaged in the year 1985 raised an industrial dispute against their non-employment and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the contentions of the workmen and directed that a scheme be framed for permanent absorption of these workers. As against, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the management filed Writ Petition No. 18071 of 1997 and entered into a settlement with the union that raised the said dispute that it will absorb the workmen covered by the settlement and thereafter did not forward any scheme for permanent absorption of the workmen. After the petitioners were selected from the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram, they were given orders of appointment, wherein they have specifically said that the employment would not continue beyond 90 days. The names of the petitioners who were selected are deleted from their rolls by the Employment Exchange. When the petitioners are ousted from service, once again they have to reapply and register themselves with the Employment Exchange and lose their seniority in the Exchange for the employment only for a period of 90 days. The method being followed by the Air India is contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court. When the petitioners are ousted from service, once again they have to reapply and register themselves with the Employment Exchange and lose their seniority in the Exchange for the employment only for a period of 90 days. The method being followed by the Air India is contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the fact that the management of the Air India is required to frame a scheme for regularisation and for absorption of such workmen, it has failed to do so and sidestepped the issue by entering into a Section 18(1) settlement with that union itself shows that respondents 1 to 3 would not act fairly in the matter of employment of the workers such as the petitioners unless this Court issues certain directions invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of Air India, the Senior Manager, HRD Southern India, Madras, has filed a common counter-affidavit in some of the writ petitions. The stand taken by the Air India is briefly stated hereunder : Air India is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, coming under the administrative control of Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. The first respondent engages casuals on a day-to-day basis depending upon the flight handling requirements for loading and unloading of passenger baggage, cargo, engineering, Ground Services Department (GSD), medical and also for cabin cleaning work for the flights of Air India and other foreign carriers with whom Air India enters into a bilateral contract. In order to meet the flight handling requirements, it was decided to recruit casuals through Employment Exchange, Kancheepuram. As the Chennai Airport comes under the jurisdiction of Kancheepuram District, the vacancy notifications were forwarded to that Exchange. In the said notification, it was specifically mentioned that the vacancies are for a specific period. Casuals were engaged for handling/palletising luggage/cargo and cabin cleaning and in other departments based on the requirements. The company has its own permanent employees to carry out the flight handling requirements. Presently, the ban on recruitment imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation is in operation and the Ministry has also directed Air India to reduce 10 per cent of its total strength as per its office memorandum, dated December 29, 1995. In all. Air India has about 183 permanent cargo assistants in the Air port Establishment, Chennai, for carrying out the loading/unloading work. In all. Air India has about 183 permanent cargo assistants in the Air port Establishment, Chennai, for carrying out the loading/unloading work. The casuals are engaged to substitute the permanent loaders/cleaners/helpers who remain absent from work. Arrival and departure of flights fluctuate and do not take place throughout the day. The work in question was casual work and not work of a perennial nature in the sense that it could not be determined in advance as to number of persons who would be required on a regular basis. This was because of the very nature of the work itself which involved arrival and departure of flights at Madras International Airport which was not something happening continuously throughout the day. Keeping in mind the requirements of casuals, the second respondent has forwarded the notification to the Kancheepuram Employment Exchange. Only those who qualified in the personal interview were engaged on casual basis. Since the offer is only for specific period and casual in nature and even during the said period the candidates who have expressed their inability to take up the assignment. The respondents have not committed breach of any statutory obligations, much less the fifth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of arrival of more foreign airlines into Madras, it became extremely acute and in order to survive and compete with the foreign airlines, it became necessary for the company to take steps to organise its business on sound commercial lines. The permanent employees of the company are represented by a recognised union that has been in existence from the year 1985. This union called Air India Employees' Guild has signed ever so many settlements with the management under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and on several occasions co-operated with the management in order to make the working of the company viable. Arising out of bilateral discussions, the employees' union took realistic approach and agreed to the management's request that several changes have to be made with regard to administrative functions of the company. Based on the discussion with the union and upon individual request as well, with effect from October 13, 1999, the permanent employees of company who were carrying out aircraft cleaning have been redeployed to do loading and unloading work along with other permanent employees already doing this type of loading and unloading work. Based on the discussion with the union and upon individual request as well, with effect from October 13, 1999, the permanent employees of company who were carrying out aircraft cleaning have been redeployed to do loading and unloading work along with other permanent employees already doing this type of loading and unloading work. It is further stated that, in order to operate economically and to provide satisfactory services it was decided with effect from October 13, 1999 that aircraft dressing (which involved cleaning of the aircraft and allied activities) would be entrusted to a contractor. After negotiations, aircraft dressing work for a period of three years ending December 31, 1999 was entrusted to Saj Caterers who have taken charge from October 13, 1999. The company's permanent employees doing aircraft cleaning were redeployed to do loading/unloading work. The management after considering business requirements and exigencies, it is considering that it would be wise and prudent to combine the activities of catering work referred to together with aircraft cleaning, particularly since aircraft cleaning as such involved just a span of about 30 minutes during the turnaround time when the aircraft is on ground. Since the talks with the union about the method and pattern of engagement of casuals could not be sorted out bilaterally, the union in fact, has taken the matter in the form of an industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said proceedings are pending before the authorities constituted under the Act. The management has been working on the idea of reducing the manpower in view of the critical financial status and also facing cumulative losses over the years, by introducing shorter working week scheme, two years leave on loss of pay and also thinking of introducing voluntary retirement schemes, it is also in the schedule of the management, that excess manpower from one area to the other area should be channelised thereby rationalising the manpower in the network. It is further stated that the union that raised the dispute, viz., I.D. No. 39 of 1991 entered into a settlement in regard to the issue and that has been finally concluded and the settlement is in operation to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is further stated that the union that raised the dispute, viz., I.D. No. 39 of 1991 entered into a settlement in regard to the issue and that has been finally concluded and the settlement is in operation to the satisfaction of all concerned. It becomes necessary to engage casual labour on account of nature of the work that involves international airlines flights that land at Madras airport and which require service. It is only on account of the nature of work that is involved that the company has necessarily to resort to engagement of casual labour. The work itself depends upon the arrival and departure of international airlines. Some of the writ petitioners who have raised industrial dispute about their non-employment and the same is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in Chennai. The petitioners have suppressed lot of facts and do not deserve discretionary orders at the hands of this Court. The Air India Employees' Guild, which is also a party in some of the writ petitions a registered and recognised trade union has already raised an industrial dispute in the question of modes, under which the management would be engaging the casual employees and the conciliation proceedings have already commenced. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. With reference to the averments made by the management in certain writ petitions, the petitioners have filed rejoinder disputing the claim made by the management and reiterating their earlier stand. Air India has also filed additional affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the notification, dated January 17, 2000 issued by the Airport Authority of India, the Airport Authority of India would with the previous approval of the Central Government make regulations relating to engagement of ground handling agency. It is stated that the effect of the notification is that an operator or carrier may either carry out ground handling services at an airport by itself or engage the services of the Airport Authority of India, the two national carriers Air India and Indian Airlines or any other handling agency licensed by the Airport Authority of India. By pointing out the above said notification, it is stated that there is no guarantee that the foreign airlines that are serviced by Air India would continue to be serviced by Air India. By pointing out the above said notification, it is stated that there is no guarantee that the foreign airlines that are serviced by Air India would continue to be serviced by Air India. The Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Kancheepuram, impleaded as fourth respondent in some of the writ petitions has filed a limited counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have asserted that the names of those selected for appointment on daily wage basis will be deleted from the Live Registers of the Employment Exchange. According to him the said apprehension is not correct. It is stated that for placement in daily rated vacancies, the registration index cards of the registrants will not be removed from the Live Registers for a period of two years. It is further stated that these candidates can get their original seniority if they produce the ousting order at the Employment Exchange within a period of 18 months. Further, it is stated that even in cases of placement in temporary/permanent vacancies on regular time scale of pay, the index cards of the registrants will be restored back to its original seniority provided the candidates report back to the Employment Exchange within 18 months from the date of their ousting from service. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the respondents. Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions : (1) In view of common award passed in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991 dated May 15, 1997, the management of Air India is bound to frame a scheme to fit in those workmen in the list of regularised workmen. (2) For settlement entered into between the parties after an award, in order to substitute the award by the settlement there should be a finding by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court that the settlement entered into pursuant to the award is fair and valid and binding on all the workmen involved in the industrial dispute. He further contended that, unless the office bearers of the union who signed the settlement were authorised by the executive committee of the union, no agreement between any office bearer of the union and the management can be called as settlement in terms of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contended that, unless the office bearers of the union who signed the settlement were authorised by the executive committee of the union, no agreement between any office bearer of the union and the management can be called as settlement in terms of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (3) Engagement of workers on rotation basis with a view to avoid engaging them continuously is an unfair labour practice. (4) Recruitment on the basis of 'descent' is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (5) Though engagement of contract labour for a particular type of work has not been abolished under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the engagement of contract labour for such work is not permissible when the work is of a permanent and perennial nature. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for Air India would contend that : (1) Most of the petitioners are out of employment and the said issue is pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for conciliation, the same cannot be agitated before this Court. (2) Since most of the petitioners are engaged and dispensed with long ago and not in service as on date, there is no question of framing of a 'scheme'. (3) The company has its own permanent employees to carry out flight handling requirements and only on account of business exigencies it becomes necessary for the company to engage casuals for loading and unloading operations. (4) Since the union at whose instance an award was passed in I.D. No. 39 of 1991 entered into a settlement, dated June 7, 1999, and the same is in operation to the satisfaction of all concerned, the settlement supersedes the award and the same is binding on other workmen. (5) The nature of jobs engaged are purely casual in nature which depends upon the uplift of the cargo which is seasonal and fluctuate in nature. (6) The Air India Employees' Guild as a registered and recognised trade union has already raised an industrial dispute on the question of modes under which the management engage the casual employees and inasmuch as the conciliation proceedings have already commenced, the question raised herein can be sorted out before the Conciliation Officer. (6) The Air India Employees' Guild as a registered and recognised trade union has already raised an industrial dispute on the question of modes under which the management engage the casual employees and inasmuch as the conciliation proceedings have already commenced, the question raised herein can be sorted out before the Conciliation Officer. Learned Government Advocate reiterated the stand taken by the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, and explained that there is no basis for the apprehension by the petitioners. Sri A. L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent - Air India Employees' Guild in WP. No. 1595 of 1999 would contend that inasmuch as the question of non-employment of the petitioners is pending before the Conciliation Officer, the writ petitions are not maintainable. In the absence of any details in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the settlement entered by their union and the management supersedes the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the same is binding on all its workmen. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Since the contentions raised are inter-linked, I shall consider the same in the following paragraphs. At the instance of an individual workman, viz., Anthony Lawrence and the Regional Secretary, Air Corporation Employees Union, Air India Region, Madras, the Government of India have referred the following two questions to the Tribunal for adjudication. In I.D. No. 22 of 1991. The issue raised was : "Whether the action of the management of Air India, Southern Region, Madras, in not regularising and terminating the services of 39 workmen (as per list attached) is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?" In I.D. No. 39 of 1991 the issue raised was : Whether the management of Air India in Southern Region, Madras is justified in denying continuous employment to 114 casual workmen detailed in annexure enclosed and employing casual workmen only for 110 days in a calendar year ? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to ? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to ? By an order, dated May 15, 1997, the Industrial Tribunal, Madras has passed an award holding that the services of 39 workmen in I.D. No. 22 of 1991 and 82 workmen referred in I.D. No. 39 of 1991 should be regularised from the date of the award with continuity of service, back wages and other benefits, Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after taking me through the entire award and the directions made therein would contend that the management ought to have implemented the same and framed a scheme to fit in all the workmen mentioned in the list of regularised workmen. It is true that, by the said award, dated May 15, 1997, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award in favour of certain workmen in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991 with continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for Air India would contend that questioning the said award, the management filed W.P. No. 18071 of 1997 before this Court. He also stated that, during the pendency of the said writ petition after negotiation with the recognised trade union, viz., Air Corporation Employees' Trade Union arrived at an amicable Settlement in the place of award, dated May 15, 1997. The settlement was signed by the management as well as Secretary, Treasurer and Committee Member of the Union. After arriving at the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, the same was filed before this Court in W.P. No. 18071 of 1997 and after recording the settlement, dated June 7, 1999 and after noting the submissions made by the learned counsel for management, by order, dated June 18, 1999 this Court has dismissed W.P No. 18071 of 1997 as withdrawn. In the same order, the learned Judge made it clear that the said order is without prejudice to the right of the individual workers, viz., respondents 3 to 20, to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. The order of the learned single Judge, dated June 18, 1999, has been confirmed by the Division Bench in WA. No. 1320 of 1999, dated September 7, 1999. The order of the learned single Judge, dated June 18, 1999, has been confirmed by the Division Bench in WA. No. 1320 of 1999, dated September 7, 1999. By pointing out the action of the management arriving at an amicable settlement dated June 7, 1999, with the registered recognised union, it is stated by the management that the award of the Tribunal, dated May 15, 1997, has duly been substituted, accordingly there is no question of implementation of the award and framing of a scheme. It is also brought to my notice that, inasmuch as most of the petitioners had left the service even in the years 1984, 1985, 1986, and some of them in 1994, 1995 they cannot ask for any scheme for regularisation at this juncture. Apart from this, it is also contended on the side of the management, viz., that in view of pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour regarding employing casual workers for certain work for certain period, all these questions can be agitated before the said authority. Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners by very much relying on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Amalgamated Coffee Estates Ltd., and others v. Their Workmen and others 1965-II-LLJ-110 would contend that, in order to substitute the award by the settlement there should be a finding by the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the settlement entered into pursuant to the award is fair and valid and binding on all the workmen involved in the industrial dispute. No doubt, in the case before the Supreme Court, after the award the parties have settled and submitted the settlement, the Supreme Court called for a Finding from the Industrial Tribunal and on the basis of the report of the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in terms of settlement. In our case, it is brought to my notice on the side of the management that, taking note of the availability of permanent employees to carry out loading and unloading operations and also of the fact that about 25 persons alone who actually are interested in pursuing the matter pursuant to the award approached the management for settlement of the issue and after deliberation they arrived at a settlement on June 7, 1999 under Section 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The following clauses in the Memorandum of Settlement, dated June 7, 1999, are relevant : "Whereas 25 persons actually interested in pursuing the matter had approached the management for a settlement of the issue and a settlement, dated April 22, 1999, had been entered into with these 25 persons as the said 25 persons only had agitated the dispute. And whereas the persons really interested in the matter have been given permanency and as the settlement fair and proper, the union subscribes to the settlement and since the dispute has been raised by the union, the union feels that the award can be substituted by the settlement, dated April 22, 1999. (o) Both the union and the management shall jointly seek for the disposal of W.P. No. 18071 of 1997 on the file of the High Court, Madras, substituting this settlement in place of the award, dated May 15, 1997, made in I.D. No. 39 of 1991." The said agreement was signed by the Commercial Manager as well as the Senior Manager on the side of the management, Secretary, Treasurer, Committee Member representing ACEI A 1 Region. The settlement, dated June 7, 1999, has been referred to in the order passed in. W.P. No. 18071 of 1999, dated June 18, 1999, and subsequently the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In such circumstance it cannot be contended that the office-bearers of the union are incompetent to arrive at a settlement, if it is beneficial to employees, more particularly in the light of the stand of the management. In this regard it is worthwhile to refer the decision cited by Sri Sanjay Mohan reported in Ram Prasad Vishwakarma v. Industrial Tribunal, Patna 1961-I-LLJ-504, wherein their Lordships have held that, the individual workman is at no stage a party to the industrial dispute independently of the union. They further observed that the union or those workmen who have by their sponsoring turned the individual dispute into an industrial dispute, can therefore claim to have a say in the conduct of the proceedings before the Tribunal. In K.C.P. Ltd v. Presiding Officer 1997-I-LLJ-308 in similar circumstances, viz., substituting the award of the Tribunal by way of private settlement, their Lordships have held, at p. 312 of LLJ : "18. In K.C.P. Ltd v. Presiding Officer 1997-I-LLJ-308 in similar circumstances, viz., substituting the award of the Tribunal by way of private settlement, their Lordships have held, at p. 312 of LLJ : "18. It has to be kept in view that the industrial dispute was raised by respondent 2-union on behalf of all the 29 workmen who were dismissed from service by the appellant-company. It was an industrial dispute as defined by Section 2(k) of the Act raised by the union on behalf of its members. Respondents 3 to 14 were at the relevant time, members of the union and even till date they continue to be the members of the sponsoring union. This was not a reference raised by a dismissed employee as per Section 2-A of the Act. Consequently, as per Section 36 of the Act, it was respondent 2-union which was in charge of the proceedings and could represent all the 29 dismissed workmen on whose behalf the dispute was raised by it. When the said union having considered the pros and cons of the situation, entered into the settlement on behalf of all the workmen for whom it had taken cudgels unless the said settlement was found to be ex facie, unjust or unfair it could not be gone behind by these respondents who can be said to be parties to the same through their representative union, respondent 2. In this connection, a reference is also required to be made to Section 18(1) of the Act which lays down as under : 11. A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. " 19. It is not in dispute that the settlement arrived at by respondent 2-union with the appellant-company was not in the course of conciliation proceedings. Therefore, it would be binding the parties to the agreement, namely, the appellant-company on the one hand and respondent 2-union representing all the 29 dismissed employees, who were its members and on whose behalf it had raised the industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act on the other. 21. Therefore, it would be binding the parties to the agreement, namely, the appellant-company on the one hand and respondent 2-union representing all the 29 dismissed employees, who were its members and on whose behalf it had raised the industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act on the other. 21. It is also not in dispute that parties to the settlement were the appellant-company on the one hand and respondent 2-union on the other, which acted on behalf of all the 29 dismissed workmen for whom reference was pending in the Labour Court. It was duly signed by both these parties. Under these circumstances, respondents 3 to 14 also would be ordinarily bound by this settlement entered into by their representative union with the company unless it is shown that the said settlement was ex facie, unfair, unjust or malafide ..." As observed by their Lordships, it is not the case of the workmen that the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, was ex facie, unfair, unjust or mala fide. The reading of the various clauses therein does not lead to such inference. In Herbertsons Ltd. v. Their workmen while rejecting similar contentions, their Lordships have concluded that; "There may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement as a phased endeavour in the course of collective bargaining. Once cordiality is established between the employer and labour in arriving at a settlement which operates well for the period that is in force, there is always a likelihood of further advances in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement avoiding friction and unhealthy litigation. This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. This is the quintessence of settlement which Courts and Tribunals should endeavour to encourage. It is in that spirit the settlement has to be judged and not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication. The Tribunal fell into an error in invoking the principles that should govern in adjudicating a dispute regarding dearness allowance in judging whether the settlement was just and fair." In the light of what is slated above, particularly in the light of the information furnished by the management in their common counter-affidavit and in view of various clauses in the settlement, dated June 7, 1999, and also of the fact that the office-bearers of the union are representing nearly 12, 000 employees, in the absence of any allegation of malafide, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners and I approve the action of the management. Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the decisions reported in H. D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India 1986-I-LLJ-127, Ferozepore Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Bhatinda and another 1986 (1) LLN 204, and the Kapurthala Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Jullundur and others 1984 (2) LLN 180, would contend that engagement of workers on rotation basis with a view to avoid engaging them continuously is an unfair labour practice. In the light of the submission made, I have carefully perused the factual position and the law made therein. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for management, the position of Air India cannot be compared with the nature and quantum of work available with the Reserve Bank of India. In the counter-affidavit the management has highlighted various factors for not employing more persons. Apart from the fact that the company has Us own permanent employees to carry out various types of work, they have entrusted the aircraft dressing to a catering contractor who would take up a composite contract of catering and aircraft dressing of Air India flights. In the counter-affidavit the management has highlighted various factors for not employing more persons. Apart from the fact that the company has Us own permanent employees to carry out various types of work, they have entrusted the aircraft dressing to a catering contractor who would take up a composite contract of catering and aircraft dressing of Air India flights. The particulars furnished in the form of annexure filed along with the counter-affidavit clearly show that the number of days worked and the details regarding the month and the year they worked as well as the other information that the union has taken up the issue, viz., pattern of engagement of casuals in the form of industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted. Though it is true that the respondent Government of India undertaking is expected to abolish contract labour system and regularise qualified persons, the particulars furnished in the counter-affidavit as well as in the annexure giving details, the action of the company cannot be faulted with. It is not disputed that the engagement of contract labour for a particular type of work has not been abolished under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no dispute that as observed by their Lordships in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union 1997-I-LLJ-1113 the judicial function of the Court therefore in interpreting the Constitution and the provisions of the Act, required to build up continuity of socio-economic empowerment of the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the law should constantly meet the needs and aspiration of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order. In this regard it is brought to my notice that taking note of over all purpose and workload the recognised registered Union in consultation with their members arrived at a settlement with the management on June 7, 1999 regularising 25 persons from and out of the list of members in I.D. Nos. 22 and 39 of 1991. Coming to the contention that recruitment on the basis of descent is violation of Arts. 22 and 39 of 1991. Coming to the contention that recruitment on the basis of descent is violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India 1987-I-LLJ-337 their Lordships have observed at pp. 344, 345 of LLJ : "17. While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service in the police department, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other relatives of the police officers either in service or retired merely because they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such police officers would be contrary to An. 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens equally and should not be confined to any extent to the descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the State or who has retired from the service ......" Again, it is observed that : " 18. We are of the opinion that the claim made by the appellants for the relaxation of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be the wards or children or relatives of the police officers has got to be negatived since their claim is based on 'descent' only and others will thereby be discriminated against as they do not happen to be the sons of police officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the grounds of descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional..." It is also relevant to refer the decision of K. P. Sivasubramaniam, J., in W.P. No. 15926 of 1988, dated August 4, 1998. The learned Judge while considering similar claim in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., giving employment to sons and wards of the existing employees has held : "6. Apart from what has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court on its interpretation of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India, it is unbeatable that in a democratic set up any public employment could be assigned only on the basis of the descent. Apart from what has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court on its interpretation of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India, it is unbeatable that in a democratic set up any public employment could be assigned only on the basis of the descent. Recently, the Supreme Court has also dealt with the issue of giving admission to students in professional colleges fixing a quota or giving preference only to the sons and daughters of the employees of institutions of the respective Universities, as illegal, it is also a matter of surprise that how any labour union wedded to the idea of welfare of the working class as a whole can bargain for such an outmoded illegal claim and that too in a public establishment in which employment is of a scientific and technical nature. Permitting such a practice would only render public service as hereditary and no other individuals other than the sons or daughters of an existing set of employees can hope to gain any public employment." In our case, even in the counter-affidavit it is admitted that there is a proposal to consider the near relatives of employees for engagement as casuals, in Para. 22 it is stated : "22. I submit that dialogues are on with the Air India Employees' Guild, the recognised union of the ground category of employees, to consider the near relatives of employees for engagement as casuals, so that a pool can be formed and casuals can be drawn from the said pool to meet the requirements." The proposal of the management and the Employees' Guild to have near relatives of employees for engagement as casuals and a pool can be formed and casuals can be drawn from the said pool to meet the requirements cannot be accepted. The said proposal is opposed to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India (supra). I am in agreement with the view expressed by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J., in the above referred decision. It is unfortunate that the Employees' Guild is anxious to include relatives of their members in the proposed pool. The action of the management and the Employees' Guild to create a pool of casuals only from the wards and children, relatives of the employees of the Air India has got to be negatived, since their claim is based on "descent" only. The action of the management and the Employees' Guild to create a pool of casuals only from the wards and children, relatives of the employees of the Air India has got to be negatived, since their claim is based on "descent" only. It is made clear that, if they want to constitute a pool of casuals, the management is directed to give preference to those persons who are not covered in the settlement, dated June 7, 1999. It is further made clear that, this aspect can also be considered in the dispute which is pending before the competent authority. Sri A. L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the recognised union-fifth respondent has also brought to my notice the pendency of issue relating to non-employment of certain persons before the competent authority. In the light of the fact that the recognised union has already raised a dispute and the same is pending before the competent authority no direction can be issued by this Court as claimed by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, I am unable to sustain the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners, except as found in Para. 27, consequently all the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No Costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, connected WMPs., are also dismissed.