S.RAJENDRA BABU, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court challenging an order made by an inspector of labour, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as the first-respondent) directing it to appoint respondents 2 to 50 as permanent workers in its establishment. (3) THE learned single judge before whom the matter came up, noticing that the appellant had not refuted that the 49 respondents are in continuous service and have completed 480 days in 24 calendar months and they having not been cross-examined, nor filing any documents against their continuous employment, dismissed the writ petition. Against that order, a writ appeal was filed before the High Court by the appellant unsuccessfully. Hence, this appeal by special leave. (4) THIS Court after directing status quo to be maintained while issuing notice kept the question of absorption in abeyance. Thereafter, this Court made an order on 16/8/1999 that 38 out of the 49 respondents have already been absorbed and for the remaining 11 persons, the process is continuing. On 22/11/99, a statement was made that in regard to remaining 11 workmen, the respondents had to furnish their identity and on furnishing of such information, they would take further steps to absorb them. Again on 21/1/2000, another order was made stating that the respondents shall file an appropriate affidavit about the identity of the concerned 11 workmen and other relevant information, in respect of whom now the dispute survives. (5) THE dispute is in respect of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 21, 27, 28, 42, 43, 48, 49 and 50. As these respondents have not furnished any material before us, we do not think the order made by the first- respondent, as affirmed by the High Court can be sustained. When in respect of the other 38 respondents, the appellant having given effect to the order made by the first-respondent, we do not think, there would have been any difficulty in doing so if the identity of these said 11 respondents had been established. As no material is forthcoming in their behalf, the order dated 31/12/96 made by the first- respondent in this regard, as affirmed in writ proceedings in the High Court shall stand set aside, thereby modifying his order to that extent only. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.