C. V. RAMULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed, aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court-Ill, hyderabad in I. D. No. 349 of 1993, dated 1-9-1993, by the Management-Chief engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project and others. ( 2 ) THIS case has a chequered history. It may be necessary to notice certain facts which resulted, the case, landing in the labour Court. About 338 workmen of Telugu ganga Project filed Writ Petition (Civil) no. 657 of 1987 before the Supreme Court of india. Similarly placed persons working under the said project also approached the apex Court directly and filed Writ Petition no. 793 of 1987 and batch, which were disposed of on 25-8-1987 with the following order:"dr. CHITALA, learned counsel for- State of A. P. , has drawn our attention to paragraph-5 of the common counter affidavit filed in all these cases sworn to by Sri B. Rameshwara Rao, E. E. , SLBC divn. No. 5. G. V. Gudem in the Dept. of irrign. and GAD, Govt. of A. P. on behalf of the respondent in these cases, which reads as follows: however, the State Govt, is prepared to provide the petitioners in the above w. Ps. in the other similar W. P. which have already been filed, employment on daily wage workers for excavation of canals in various projects like Srisailam left bank canal, T. B. P. High level canal, t. G. P. on preferential basis, provided that these persons were working previously and are willing to go to the places where the employment can be provided and are willing to do the manual work that can be provided. As far as possible, the State Govt, would have endeavour to ensure continuity of work subject to the above and they would be given preference for absorption against any future vacancies that may arise after adjusting surplus persons. Dr. Chitala further submits that as far as possible all the labourers, who are involved in these cases, will be provided work as stated above. In view of the above statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petition may be disposed of. They further state that the labourers involved in these cases are willing to work wherever they may be posted by the state Govt. In view of the above statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petition may be disposed of. They further state that the labourers involved in these cases are willing to work wherever they may be posted by the state Govt. We hope that the statement made in paragraph 5 above will be implemented by the State Govt, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks. In view of the above orders, sri P. P. Rao, does not press CMP no. 16179 of 1987 and is hereby dismissed. Amongst the above petitioners, the cases which are not posted today, shall be treated as on board at the request of the counsel. These petitions are disposed of. "writ Petition No. 657 of 1987 filed by the members of the respondent-union and others also stood disposed of in view of the observations made by the apex Court in the last portion of the above order. However, there was some controversy as to disposal of Writ Petition No. 657 of 1987 along with writ Petition No. 793 of 1 987 and batch and the matters have come up before this Court in Writ Petition No, 16633 of 1987 and Writ appeal No. 14 of 1988. Thus, a clarification was sought from the Supreme Court wherein it was clarified and informed that Writ petition No. 657 of 1987 has already been disposed of by an order of the Court dated 25-8-1987 in Writ Petition No. 793 of 1987 and batch. Thus, the controversy that whether Writ Petition No. 657 of 1987 was disposed of along with Writ Petition No. 793 of 1987 and batch or not came to an end. Further, M. P. No. 27808 of 1987 (contempt application) was filed in the batch of Writ petitions disposed of along with civil Writ petition No. 793 of 1995 i. e. Writ Petition no. 2954-3016 of 1985 wherein the earlier orders issued by the Supreme Court in Writ petition No. 793 of 1987, and batch was clarified. Further, M. P. No. 27808 of 1987 (contempt application) was filed in the batch of Writ petitions disposed of along with civil Writ petition No. 793 of 1995 i. e. Writ Petition no. 2954-3016 of 1985 wherein the earlier orders issued by the Supreme Court in Writ petition No. 793 of 1987, and batch was clarified. The said order dated 20-4-1988 reads as under:"under the order made by this Court on 25-8-1987 the petitioners are entitled to be employed as daily wage workers on excavation of canals in various projects e. g. , Srisailam Left Bank Canal, tungabhadra Project High Level Canal and Telugu Ganga Project on preferential basis, provided they were working previously and are willing to go to the places where the employment can be provided in any part of Andhra pradesh and are also willing to do the manual work, that can be provided to them. The petitioners are entitled to be paid minimum wage payable for the kind of work assigned to them. What we meant by our observation that as far as possible the State Government shall ensure continuity of work is that as far as possible the petitioners should be allowed to work as casual labourers until it is possible to absorb them. We did not intend that they must be given the benefit of continuity of service from the date on which they ceased to be employees earlier. If the petitioners have any grievance about the implementation of the order made by us, their cases may be considered by the Labour Court having the jurisdiction over the area in question. Contempt proceedings are dropped. " ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, the workmen, who were petitioners in Writ Petition No. 657 of 1987, aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 1988, dated 14-9-1990 approached the Supreme court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16189 of 1990. The said S. L. P. was disposed of by an order, dated 31 -7-1991, which reads as follows:"by the order dated 20/04/1988, this court inter alia directed: the petitioners are entitled to be paid minimum wage payable for the kind of work assigned to them. The said S. L. P. was disposed of by an order, dated 31 -7-1991, which reads as follows:"by the order dated 20/04/1988, this court inter alia directed: the petitioners are entitled to be paid minimum wage payable for the kind of work assigned to them. What we meant by our observation that as far as possible the State Government shall ensure continuity of work is that as far as possible the petitioners should be allowed to work as casual labourers until it is possible to absorb them. We did not intend that they must be given the benefit of continuity of service from the date on which they ceased to be employees earlier. If the petitioners have any grievance about the implementation of the order made by us, their cases may be considered by the Labour Court having the jurisdiction over the area in question. In breach of this direction, petitioner moved the High Court and having lost before it, this Special Leave Petition has been filed. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed this Special Leave petition. Mr. Salve, counsel for the petitioner, has, however, suggested that since the pleadings are complete and the order which we have extracted above contemplating the proceedings before the Labour Court has been made, papers may be transmitted to the Labour Court at Vijayawada for the adjudication in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondents have no objection. The Labour Court will try to dispose of the case expeditiously. Special Leave Petition is disposed accordingly. "that is how, this job was entrusted to the labour Court. ( 4 ) ON receipt of case material from the supreme Court and to consider the matter in consonance with the directions issued by the supreme Court dated 31-7-1991 in s. L. P. No. 16189 of 1990, the Labour Court framed the following issues for adjudication:" (1) Whether these retrenched petitioners (list of persons as shown in the schedule of S. L. P. No. 16189/90 in Supreme Court of india) shall be ensured with continuity of work to the possible extent of providing work as casual labourers till it is possible to absorb them ? (2) Whether the respondents have provided the work to these petitioners but the petitioners did not join duty at Telugu Ganga Project when they were allotted work ? (2) Whether the respondents have provided the work to these petitioners but the petitioners did not join duty at Telugu Ganga Project when they were allotted work ? (3) If not, to what relief the petitioners are entitled to ?" ( 5 ) WHILE framing the above issues, the labour Court noticed that the present litigation is confined to 74 workmen, who were petitioners in S. L. P. No. 16189 of 1990 out of 338 workmen in Writ Petition No. 657 of 1987. The petition filed in S. L. P. No. 16189 of 1990 and the counter affidavit filed therein were treated as claim statement and counter respectively in the I. D. ( 6 ) THE grievance of the members of the respondent-union, before the Labour Court was that they have been working in the nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal Division since 1980 as skilled workers, that the State government issued G. O. Ms. No. 143, dated 16-3-1984 for absorption of all NMR employees, but the petitioners herein with a view to deprive the benefit of that G. O. , retrenched them in the year 1984 and that the retrenched employees about 3000 in number of A. P. Construction Corporation filed Writ Petition before this Court and obtained orders of reinstatement either in the corporation or anywhere in the State government Departments. According to the respondent-union, they have also filed Writ petitions before the Supreme Court as stated above and obtained orders. About 1500 workmen from the said Construction corporation were deputed to the N. S. Left canal Division, in which their members are working and in order to accommodate the said retrenched employees, the petitioners herein vide order dated 15-10-1987 reposted and transferred their members to Telugu ganga Project. Though their members tried to join duties at Telugu Ganga Project, the officials and local people there did not permit them to join duty and they were asked to work as manual labour, which was virtually retrenchment from NSCL project. The device adopted by the management-writ petitioners amounts to retrenchment, which the writ petitioners directly could not do due to the orders passed by the apex Court. The members of the respondent-Union have been denied work due to the mala fide and vindictive attitude of the management, only because they have knocked the doors of the court for redressal of their grievances. The members of the respondent-Union have been denied work due to the mala fide and vindictive attitude of the management, only because they have knocked the doors of the court for redressal of their grievances. The project under which the members of the respondent-union had been working has still been continuing since 1954 and it is one of the five major projects in the Nalgonda district and it will continue for years together. The members of the respondent-union are far far seniors to the NMRs of the government Department and the NMRs of the Corporation. In spite of this, the workmen in the instant case have been deprived of the benefit of absorption/regularization. The non-regularization of the members of the respondent-union amounts to unfair labour practice, especially in view of the judgment of the apex Court stated supra. ( 7 ) THE case of the management (petitioners herein) was that the workmen were engaged as casual labour in Nagarjuna sagar Left canals lining work, which was taken up in the year 1981. The said workmen were seasonal and they were engaged on temporary basis and their services were dispensed with after necessity ceased. Thus, they have no right to claim continuous service on regular basis and they do not acquire any right under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. These 74 workmen of the defunct Nagarjuna Sagar left canals Stores Division, Miryalaguda were engaged in different branches based on necessity and wages were paid as per ssr (Standard Schedule of Rates ). As per the interim order of the Supreme Court in writ Petition No. 657 of 1987 these workmen were taken to duty pending disposal of the case and orders were issued to that effect on 30-7-1987. They were admitted to duty during the period from 24-8-1987 to 29-8-1987. It was denied that these workers were engaged against clear vacancies and sufficient work is available for their continuance. It was also contended by the management that the Supreme Court in Writ petition No. 793 of 1987 and batch directed to provide work to the workmen in excavation of canals in various projects, provided they were working previously and willing to do manual work also, since they had admitted that they are willing to work anywhere they are posted. Before the receipt of repeating orders, the superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga project allotted these workers to various divisions. Before the receipt of repeating orders, the superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga project allotted these workers to various divisions. The Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna sagar Project vide his letter dated 20-10-1987 directed the Superintending engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Canals circle, nuzvid to engage them on excavation of distributories and pay them wages on out of turn basis. This was only a stop gap arrangement till final orders were received from the Superintending Engineer, Telugu ganga Project Mechanical circle. After receipt of the orders of the Superintending engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, the orders issued by the Chief Engineer dated 20-10-1987 were cancelled. Consequently, the Executive Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar canals Division, Miryalaguda relieved these workers with direction to report for duty before the new Unit Officers of Telugu ganga Project. But, instead of reporting for duty, the workmen filed Writ Petition no. 16633 of 1987 for their continuance at nagarjuna Sagar Canals Division, miryalaguda itself with reluctance to go to telugu Ganga project. From the beginning, the workmen (members of the respondent- union) were unwilling to do manual work. It is further stated that though there was no work and the workmen were retrenched during 1984 due to closure of various governmental works, the Government was considerate enough in giving assurance before the Supreme Court to provide employment, since it was admitted by them that they are willing to work wherever they are posted. Several hundreds of work charged personnel in Nagarjuna Sagar Left canal Division are waiting for absorption. This being the situation, these N. M. R- workmen cannot be posted back at a place where there is no work. If really these workmen were not eking out their livelihood, they would have joined at Telugu Ganga project where work was provided. The members of the respondent-union have no legitimate right of absorption or regularization by ignoring others, who are waiting for the last several years. The management had already implemented interim orders of the Supreme Court by providing work to the workmen and since they did not join in Telugu Ganga Project as directed, they cannot have any grievance to adjudicate their dispute before the Labour court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim as unjust, unlawful and baseless. ( 8 ) THE respondent-union examined w. W. I to W. W. 8 and marked Exs. W-l to w-12. Though the management had not led any oral evidence, but marked Ex. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim as unjust, unlawful and baseless. ( 8 ) THE respondent-union examined w. W. I to W. W. 8 and marked Exs. W-l to w-12. Though the management had not led any oral evidence, but marked Ex. M-1 - order in Writ Petition No. 16633 of 1987. The labour Court, after elaborate consideration of the matter, found that in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, the workmen are deemed to be in the employment in nagarjuna Sagar Canal Division, miryalguda, Nalgonda district and directed the management (petitioners herein) to maintain status-quo ante prior to 31 -10-1987 as if the workmen have not been relieved from Nagarjuna Sagar Canal division, Miryalguda division and consequently to issue necessary orders of posting at the same place by entrusting the suitable job as casual labour and the payment of wages will commence from the date of their joining in N. S. C. Division, miryalguda. Since the workmen joined duty on 1-9-1987 at N. S. C. Division, Miryalguda, they were wrongfully transferred relieving them on 31-10-1987, they are entitled for back wages from 31-10-1987 till the date of award at the rate of 1/5th of the last drawn wage. The Award was directed to be published by the Government of Andhra pradesh under Section 17 of Industrial disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by this order, the present Writ Petition is filed. ( 9 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate General appearing for the writ petitioners- management has categorically stated that so far as the findings of fact arrived at by the labour Court are concerned, they are not in dispute and also are not under challenge. The only point urged by the learned additional Advocate General is that the labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while answering the dispute that arose as to the implementation of the orders of the Supreme court as directed by it earlier. ( 10 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate General also contended that the Labour Court cannot go beyond the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25-8-1987 read with the Order dated 20-4-1988. The only aspect the Labour court ought to have seen was whether the members of the respondent-union were offered employment as assured by the management before the Supreme Court or not. The only aspect the Labour court ought to have seen was whether the members of the respondent-union were offered employment as assured by the management before the Supreme Court or not. It is none of the business of the Labour court in going further as to whether the management having given posting orders in view of the interim orders of the Supreme court immediately relieved them on 31-10-1987 by transferring them from n. S. canal project and whether there was work at Nagarjuna Sagar Canal Division, miryalguda, Nalgonda district or not, to accommodate the members of the respondent-union. The Labour Court misdirected itself and came to an erroneous conclusion. Further, this very issue raised by the management was not dealt with by the labour Court. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate general, of course, assuming the direction of supreme Court as a reference, relied upon the Judgments in Pottery Mazdoor panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. \ workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2, Kausalya devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer3 and dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 4 and states that in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the apex Court in the above cases, the Labour Court traversed beyond the reference before it. ( 12 ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-union argued that the Labour court was within its limits in passing the impugned orders and did not traverse beyond the directions issued by the supreme Court while overseeing the problems that arose in implementation of the orders of the apex Court. Learned counsel gave thrust to the orders of the Supreme court dated 31-7-1991 and contended that in the said order, the Supreme Court categorically stated that when a suggestion was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein i. e. 1st respondent herein, that since the pleadings are complete and the earlier order dated 25-8-1987 contemplating proceedings before the labour Court has been made, the papers may be transmitted to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law and the counsel representing the management also had no objection before the Supreme Court for such course of action. Pursuant to this order, the pleadings i. e. petition and counters filed by the parties before the supreme Court were transmitted to the labour Court. They were treated as claim petition and counter in the I. D, respectively. That is how the dispute as to implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court be looked into. Since the members of the respondent-union have raised the question of their illegal transfer to Telugu Ganga project in spite of the work available in n. S. Canal Division, Miryalguda and the same has become part and parcel of the adjudication before the Labour Court, and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that the Labour Court has traversed beyond its brief, particularly having had no objection before the Supreme court as to transmitting the matter to the labour Court for adjudication. Learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court to various pleadings before the Supreme court in S. L. P. No. 16189 of 1990 wherein it was categorically alleged that the workmen have been subjected to harassment, discrimination and were transferred to various places with an intention to accommodate retrenched workers of a. P. Construction Corporation for which a suitable counter was also filed by the management before the Supreme Court. He further submitted that in the light of the above position, it is a matter of course that the Labour Court examined whether in spite of the work available at Nagarjuna Sagar canal Division, Miryalaguda, workmen were transferred and harassed only to avoid their permanent absorption. ( 13 ) IN this case, as already pointed out earlier, learned Additional Advocate General did not raise any objection as to the factual findings arrived at by the Labour Court. Thus, the only question to be seen is whether the Labour Court has traversed beyond the brief entrusted to it i. e. adjudicating as to the rightful implementation of the order of the Supreme Court dated 25-8-1987 read with the Order dt. 31-7-1991. ( 14 ) IT may be necessary to notice that after the Award was passed, the government while exercising its power under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 nullified the Award passed by the labour Court. Aggrieved by the same, Writ petition No. 1090 of 1994 was filed and this court held that Section 17 (2) of Industrial disputes Act. Aggrieved by the same, Writ petition No. 1090 of 1994 was filed and this court held that Section 17 (2) of Industrial disputes Act. 1947 to the extent of the words subject to the provisions of Section 17-A and sub-sections (1) to (4) thereof are draconian in nature and struck down the same and that order had become final. In fact, nothing prevented the management- state from questioning the Award of the labour Court in I. D. No. 349 of 1993 before the Supreme Court of India directly by invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of india, However, they choose to file the present Writ Petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-union even this is also a plot adopted by the management, which may not be necessary to go into. ( 15 ) NOW, I will refer the decisions relied by the learned Additional Advocate General. In Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect pottery Co. Ltd. (1 supra), the Supreme held as follows :"11. Having heard a closely thought out argument made by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in its view on the first question. The very terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the parties was not the fact of the closure of its business by the respondent but the propriety and justification of the respondent s decision to close down the business. That is why the references were expressed to say whether the proposed closure of the business was proper and justified. In other words, by the references, the Tribunals were not called upon by the Government to adjudicate upon the question as to whether there was in fact a closure of business or whether under the pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the management. The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management". In Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2 supra), the apex Court observed thus :". . . . . . . . . . In Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2 supra), the apex Court observed thus :". . . . . . . . . . BUT the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the pleadings and arrogate to itself the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference are precluded or prohibited from raising; to wit if the employer does not question the status of the workmen, the Tribunal cannot suo motu raise the issue and proceed to adjudicate upon, the same- and throw out the reference on the sole ground that the concerned workman was not a workman within the meaning of the expression of the Act. And it is not obligatory upon the employer necessarily to raise the contention that the concerned workman was not a workman within the meaning of the expression under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was wholly in error in holding that if the contention of the union were to prevail, the well laid rule of no estoppel against a statute would be violated. "in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition officer (3 supra), the Supreme Court held :"6. The direction of the appellate court is certainly binding on the courts subordinate thereto. That apart, in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the constitution, all courts in India are bound to follow the decisions of this court. Judicial discipline requires and decorum known to law warrants that appellate directions should be taken as binding and followed. "in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (4 supra)/ the apex Court held thus :"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and, unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and, unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops. " ( 16 ) BEFORE going into the various contentions made by the learned counsel on either side, it may be necessary to notice the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 1987, dated 30-7-1987, which reads as under:"issue notice. Post this case along with Writ Petition nos. 12752-12786 of 1984 and other connected matters. The petitioners in this petition shall be taken back to duty pending disposal of the petition, if they report to duty on any date within one month from today. It is made clear that these petitioners are not entitled to any wages upto the date of their joining duty under this order. " ( 17 ) PURSUANT to the said order, the members of the respondent-union were given posting orders on 1-9-1987 and they reported at Nagarjuna Sagar Canal Division, miryalaguda, They were immediately transferred and relieved from duty on 31-10-1987 for being reported at Telugu ganga project, since the Supreme Court passed orders in the meanwhile on 25-8-1987, Labour Court found that the transfer of workmen to Telugu Ganga project with effect from 31-10-1987 is nothing but harassment, in spite of there being sufficient work, and this was done only to accommodate 1500 retrenched workers of the Andhra Pradesh Construction corporation and not because that there was no work available. Anyway, this is not challenged by the petitioners, in this case. ( 18 ) STRICTLY speaking all the said decisions have no relevance to the facts of this case. Firstly, it is not a reference under Section 10 of the I. D. Act referred to the Labour Court. Secondly, it is a direction by the Supreme court to deal with the situation arising out of implementation of its order dated 25-8-1987 read with orders dated 20-4-1988 and 31-7-1991. Firstly, it is not a reference under Section 10 of the I. D. Act referred to the Labour Court. Secondly, it is a direction by the Supreme court to deal with the situation arising out of implementation of its order dated 25-8-1987 read with orders dated 20-4-1988 and 31-7-1991. Though strictly speaking, it is not a reference under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, all the questions are left open to the Labour Court while deciding the matter as to whether the orders of the Supreme Court were properly implemented or not. In fact, the scope of enquiry in this I. D. is wider than the reference, as the Labour Court can invoke all the powers vested in it under the provisions of I. D,act and decide all relevant, ancillary and inherent questions of law and facts. What strictly needs to be seen is whether the issues framed by the Labour Court revolve around the question of implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court and whether the Labour Court is vested with such a power under the I. D. Act to adjudicate upon the issues in the manner in which it did. This court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while framing the issues and deciding the matter, than what is required to be adjudicated as per the orders of the Supreme Court, The Labour Court was very much within its limits while exercising the powers vested in it. ( 19 ) NOW coming to the question proper, it is seen that as per the directions of the supreme Court dated 25-8-1987, the government was under obligation to ensure continuity of work to the members of the respondent-union and they would be given preference for absorption against any future vacancies that may arise, after adjusting surplus persons. Further, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court dated 20-4-1988 in Miscellaneous Petition no. 27808 of 1987 in Writ Petition Nos. 2954- 3016 of 1985 (contempt application) if the workmen had any grievance about the implementation of the Orders dated 25-8-1987 they may be considered by the labour Court having jurisdiction over the area. Further, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court dated 20-4-1988 in Miscellaneous Petition no. 27808 of 1987 in Writ Petition Nos. 2954- 3016 of 1985 (contempt application) if the workmen had any grievance about the implementation of the Orders dated 25-8-1987 they may be considered by the labour Court having jurisdiction over the area. In the order dated 31-7-1991, the supreme Court reiterated the earlier order dated 20-4-1988 and further directed that since the pleadings are complete before the supreme Court, the same may be transmitted to the Labour Court for which the management had no objection. Labour Court was right in treating the petition filed by the workmen and the counter filed by the management (writ petitioners herein/ before the Supreme Court as claim statement and counter respectively in the I. D. and framing the issues. In the light of the said directions of the apex Court, the Labour Court has framed the above issues and adjudicated upon the same, which is objected to by the management-writ petitioners. ( 20 ) STRICTLY speaking, there was no reference before the Labour Court. It is only on the basis of various directions issued by supreme Court and also in view of the pleadings of both the parties, which were transmitted by the Supreme Court, the labour Court was supposed to go into the implementation of the orde~s of the Supreme court. While going into the question of proper implementation of the orders of the supreme Court in respect of the workmen, it is inherent, incidental and relevant to go into the questions whether the members of the respondent-union were denied employment in their own place and whether they were ensured continuity of work until it is possible to absorb them on regular basis, as they have been working for the last so many years. ( 21 ) IT is the case of the respondent-union before the Supreme Court as well as the labour Court that as many as 1500 workers, who were retrenched from Andhra Pradesh construction Corporation were adjusted against their posts resulting in denial of their permanent absorption and also transferring them to other places in the guise of nonavailability of work. ( 21 ) IT is the case of the respondent-union before the Supreme Court as well as the labour Court that as many as 1500 workers, who were retrenched from Andhra Pradesh construction Corporation were adjusted against their posts resulting in denial of their permanent absorption and also transferring them to other places in the guise of nonavailability of work. It may be necessary to reiterate that in view of the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 30-6-1987, the workmen were given posting orders in their own place on 1-9-1987 and in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 25-8-1987, taking advantage of the fact that the workmen are willing to work anywhere thev are posted, the members of the respondent-union were transferred in spite of there being work available, only to accommodate the retrenched workers of andhra Pradesh Construction Corporation in preference to the members of respondent- union and also with a further intention to deny their permanent absorption. The members of the respondent-union were denied absorption on regular basis as per the direction of the Supreme Court. Since it was necessary for the Labour Court also to examine as to the denial of permanent absorption of the workmen, I am of the considered opinion that it necessitated for the Labour Court to go into all the aspects and thus rightly framed the issues. The labour Court neither can be said to have traversed beyond the directions of the supreme Court nor it acted beyond its jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to notice that not a shred of evidence was let in by the management before the Labour Court that there was no work available at nagarjunasagar Canals Division, miryalguda. The management themselves cancelled the order of transfer to Telugu ganga Project and now the workers are blamed alleging that they did not join there. It is also pertinent to notice that not a shred of evidence was let in by the management before the Labour Court that there was no work available at nagarjunasagar Canals Division, miryalguda. The management themselves cancelled the order of transfer to Telugu ganga Project and now the workers are blamed alleging that they did not join there. ( 22 ) IN view of the above, the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that the Labour Court ought to have gone into only as to the fact whether the members of the respondent-union were provided with work and whether they have joined duty and it was not necessary for the Labour Court to go into the fact whether the work was available at Nagarjuna Sagar Canal Division, miryalguda or not and whether the workmen were transferred legally or illegally to some other place since the assurance given before the Supreme Court was that as far as possible, the workmen would be provided work and would be continued till their absorption and that the scope of enquiry in the impugned award went beyond the directions of the apex Court, cannot be accepted. ( 23 ) IT may be necessary to notice that there are two aspects of the orders of the supreme Court, Firstly, as far as possible, the workmen should be allowed to work as casual labour and secondly, they should be continued until it is possible to absorb them on regular basis. While going into these two aspects, it was necessary to go into the ancillary and relevant questions as to whether transfer of the workmen was legal or illegal. The Labour Court has got jurisdiction to go into such aspects in an industrial adjudication and it cannot be faulted with for any reason whatsoever. ( 24 ) FOR all the above reasons, the Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/ -.