Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed the present petition, raising important question: "whether after making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for brevity the Act), the appropriate Government has jurisdiction to make correction in the Schedule by re-substituting the Schedule ?" ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that-Respondent No. 3, Nagar Nigam Jal Praday Avam Lok Karm vibhag Karmachari Sangh (hereinafter referred to as sangh) is a Union of the employees working in the Water Works and Public Works Department of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. At the instance of Sangh, the appropriate Govt, referred a dispute to the Industrial Court for adjudication. The reference order is Annexure P-3, dated 16-3-1998. As per schedule, the terms of reference was as to "whether the employer has complied with fully the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Indore in respect of regularisation of the labourers working in Water Supply Department ? If not, then how many remaining labourers are eligible for regularisation ? and what directions may be issued to the employer ?" Previously, the Industrial Court vide Annexure p-1, dated 23rd Feb. , 1998 passed the award in following terms :-Party No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur through the evidence of one Gopal Lai Mishra, witness No. 1, has tried to say that the Corporation is spending about 65% of its income on its establishment and year wise percentage of expenditure on establishment was stated by this witness. In the year 1984-85 the corporation had to depend on over draft of rupees 25 lacs. The state Government has not agreed to certain proposals submitted by the Corporation for increasing their income. Some proposals are under the active consideration of the State Government and these proposals are about the enhancement in the rate of taxation. The Corporation has also failed to give the exact number of employees engaged in water supply department. Only the number shown 234. Shri Ram Pratap Dube who was officiating as Executive Engineer at the time when he was examined stated that there are four sources of water supply in Jabalpur and at all these places, the number of operators and officers differ. Only the number shown 234. Shri Ram Pratap Dube who was officiating as Executive Engineer at the time when he was examined stated that there are four sources of water supply in Jabalpur and at all these places, the number of operators and officers differ. In cross-examination Shri Dube admitted that when he was officiating as Executive Engineer he has found that 280 employees are regularly working in the water supply department, and these persons are working for the last so many years. I will not like to fix the number because the parties have failed to assist this tribunal in this respect and it was also not brought on record that how many posts in different categories should be made permanent because parties have failed to adduce evidence so that this Tribunal can, come to a definite conclusion about the permanent posts required under different categories. But it has come in evidence that 280 persons are regularly working for the last so many years. So all these two hundred and eighty persons who are working earlier to 3-1-1984 and are still on the roll of the water supply department should be made permanent and that should be the permanent strength till it is necessary to make any change in that strength. From these 280 permanent posts the Corporation after careful consideration is free to divide them category wise, i. e. , skilled or unskilled workers. Similarly for making them permanent as I have already discussed all those employees may be of any category - male or female, skilled or unskilled worker those who were found on the roll of the water supply department earlier to 3-1-1984 and are still working on the roll of the Corporation should be made permanent from 3-1-1984 the date of reference. In future when vacancy arises in the permanent cadre the employees who are working temporarily should be absorbed in the permanent cadre. The Corporation can also draw a suitable scheme so that in future the unfair labour practice being practiced knowingly or unknowingly may be discontinued. Issue No. 2 is replied accordingly. " ( 3. ) WITH the aforesaid directions, the reference was decided. Though the aforesaid award was challenged by the petitioner upto the High court, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 5-9-1991. Issue No. 2 is replied accordingly. " ( 3. ) WITH the aforesaid directions, the reference was decided. Though the aforesaid award was challenged by the petitioner upto the High court, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 5-9-1991. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner started exercise to comply with the award passed by the Industrial Court, Indore. After examining cases, an order dated 31-3-1993 was issued by the petitioner by which 280 employees were regularised in service with effect from 1-1-1984. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 20-2-98 (Annexure P-l) was duly complied with. Respondent No. 3 again approached to the appropriate Government. For initiating conciliation proceedings for the non- compliance of the award (Annexure P-l ). The conciliation proceedings failed and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore referred the matter to the Industrial Court for adjudication vide Annexure P-3, dated 16-3-1998. On the basis of the reference (Annexure P-3), Industrial Court proceeded to decide the reference in respect of the labourers working in Water Works department of petitioner. ( 4. ) THERE was another reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Indore which was registered as Reference Case No. 6/it/83 in respect of the employees by Public Works Department, which was decided on 29-4-1997. The industrial Court directed that 229 daily wagers in P. W. D may be confirmed in accordance with their seniority with effect from the date of the reference, i. e. , 21-7-1983. As there was two awards by the Industrial Court one in respect of employees of the Water Works Department Annexure P-l and another for the employees of the Public Works Department Annexure P-4. The Labour commissioner vide Annexure P- 3 reference has referred the matter in respect of employees of Water Works Department. Respondent No. 3 in the proceed-ings insisted to the Industrial Court that the issue in respect of regularisation of the workmen in Public Works Department be also decided. The petitioner raised objection in this regard. On 24-1-2002, the Industrial Court appointed a Commissioner to examine the list submitted by respondent No. 3 and as also by the petitioner of the employees, who were to be regularised. The petitioner raised objection in this regard. On 24-1-2002, the Industrial Court appointed a Commissioner to examine the list submitted by respondent No. 3 and as also by the petitioner of the employees, who were to be regularised. The petitioner raised objection that respondent No. 3 has filed a list in respect of employees of Public Works Department while the reference is only in respect of the workmen working in Water Works Department. On this, the Industrial Court deferred the hearing of the case for 12-2-2002 to consider the issue. On 12-2-2002 when the Industrial Court was hearing the case, an order dated 12-2-2002 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Appropriate Government was produced before the Tribunal by which the Schedule of Annexure P-3 (the reference order dated 6-3-1998) was substituted by the another schedule as per order dated 12-2-2002 and the result of this was that the workmen of Public works Department were also included in the schedule. As the schedule was amended by the appropriate Govt. , the petitioner sought adjournment from the Labour Court to assail the aforesaid order (Annexure P-6) dated 12-2-2003 before this Court, hence this petition. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order (Annexure P-6), dated 12-2-2002 on the grounds, (1) that after making a reference by the Appropriate Govt. , the appropriate Govt, became functus officio and can not amend the order of reference in this manner, (2) there were two separate awards towards Water Works Department dated 23-2-98 and public Works Department dated 29-4-97 and the appropriate Govt. has referred the matter only in respect of the workmen of Water Works Department, (3) if the appropriate Govt. was of the opinion, to refer the matter of workmen of Public Works Department, then it ought to have made a separate reference in respect of the employees of Public Works Department, (4) that under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, no amendment can be made in the order of reference. In this regard, the learned Counsel for petitioner has placed his reliance upon Apex Courts judgment in Mis. Dabar Private limited Vs. Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 17 and contended that the reference can not be amended and order is without jurisdiction. The last contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that this Court in Ramadhar Kushwaha Vs. In this regard, the learned Counsel for petitioner has placed his reliance upon Apex Courts judgment in Mis. Dabar Private limited Vs. Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 17 and contended that the reference can not be amended and order is without jurisdiction. The last contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that this Court in Ramadhar Kushwaha Vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 1464/2001, dated 27-2-2003 has already decided the question of regularisation of the employees. In the circumstances, no further order is needed by any Labour Court or Tribunal for regularisation of the employees. The order dated 27-2-2003 is exhaustive and covers all the exigencies. In the circumstances, the reference has rendered infructuous and the petitioner has to comply with the order passed by this Court and no further order is needed in this regard from the Industrial Court. ( 6. ) CONTROVERTING aforesaid, the learned Counsel for respondent submits that the appropriate Govt. has power to amend the order of reference and in this regard, he has placed reliance to the Apex Court judgments in State of Maharashtra Vs. K. E. Union, AIR 1975 SC 635 , Manager, Hotel Imperial, new Delhi Vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and others, AIR 1959 SC 1214 , madan Pal Singh Vs. State of U. P. and others, (2000) 1 SCC 683 and Secretary, indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, (2000) 1 SCC 93 and contended that the Industrial Court has done justice in this case and acted within the jurisdiction. When the justice has been done, this Court ought not to have interfered in the order under writ jurisdiction. The matter is pending since a very long period and the previous awards were passed in the years 1988 and 1997, which have not been complied with by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the appropriate Government has rightly referred the entire matter for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. And this petition may be dismissed with cost. ( 7. ) CONSIDERING aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Counsel for parties, it may be appropriate to look into some glaring facts of the case which are as under :-From the perusal of Annexure R-3-4, dated 12-12-1997, it is clear that the Deputy Labour Commissioner was considering the matter of regularisation of employees working in both the departments and has passed the order accordingly. The Deputy labour Commissioner while passing the order, in the very beginning expressed his opinion that there is dispute between municipal Corporation and the Workmen of Water Supply department which is being represented by Municipal Corporation Water Supply and Pubilc Works Department, Labour sangh, Jabalpur, and ordered to refer the matter of both the departments. But in the schedule of the aforesaid reference order, the matter in respect of the regularisation of the workmen of Water Supply Department was referred. Subsequently vide order (Annexure P-6), the employees of Public Works Department were included and previous awards dated 23-2-99 and 29-4-97 were referred. The aforesaid facts show that the workmen in P. W. D. from the very beginning were agitating their issue before the appropriate Govt. and the Deputy Labour commissioner while found it appropriate to refer the matter to industrial Court vide order dated 12-2-97, has specifically made it clear that on the aforesaid grounds, the case of the P. W. D. be also decided, but it appears that while preparing the schedule of reference, Annexure P-3, there was an omission in respect of employees of Public Works Department. During the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 3 continuously insisted for adjudication of the dispute in respect of the employees working in P. W. D. When the list of the employees furnished before the Labour Court, the employees of P. W. D. were also included along with the employees of the water Works Department, which is apparent from Annexure p-5, dated 28-4-2002. The Deputy Labour Commissioner considering the cases of workmen; working in both departments passed the order (Annexure R-3-4) in this regard, but in the schedule (Annexure P-3), the workmen of P. W. D. could not be included which error has been rectified by the Labour Commissioner in its subsequent order (Annexure P-6 ). ( 8. ) NOW the question arose whether the appropriate Govt. has power to do so or not. The learned Counsel for petitioner has placed his reliance to Apex Court judgment in Mis. Dabar Private Limited (supra ). In para 3 of the judgment, the Apex Court held :- "3. . . . . . . . . We can not see how any objection can be taken to the competence of the State Government to make a correction of a mere clerical error. Dabar Private Limited (supra ). In para 3 of the judgment, the Apex Court held :- "3. . . . . . . . . We can not see how any objection can be taken to the competence of the State Government to make a correction of a mere clerical error. The finding that it was a clerical error means that the Government in fact intended to make the reference to the Labour Court, Ranchi; but, while actually scribing the order of reference, a mistake was committed by the writer of putting down Patna instead of Ranchi. Such a clerical error can does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference from, or cancellation of the reference to, the Labour Court, Patna. The high Court was, therefore, right in rejecting this contention on behalf of the appellant. " ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appropriate Govt. is having power to correct any error which arose in preparing the schedule/reference order. Correction of such a mistake or error will not amount either withdrawal or cancellation of the reference to the Labour Court. Though the learned Counsel for petitioner, apart from aforesaid judgment of Dabar private Limited has placed reliance on the judgments of the High Courts of calcutta and Punjab : AIR 1963 Calcutta 346 and AIR 1966 Punjab 214, but in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the case is decided. ( 10. ) IN Manager, Hotel Imperial (supra), the Apex Court held :- "the fact remains that the dispute which was referred for adjudication was between the employer namely, the management of the hotel, and its employees, which were mentioned as its workmen. The addition of the words "as represented by the hotel Workers Union Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, delhi" was merely for the sake of convenience so that the tribunal may know to whom it should give notice when proceeding to deal with the reference. That however did not preclude the workmen, if they wanted to be represented by any other union, to apply to the Tribunal for such representation or even to apply for being made parties individually. . . . . . That however did not preclude the workmen, if they wanted to be represented by any other union, to apply to the Tribunal for such representation or even to apply for being made parties individually. . . . . . " "the objection further is that even if the workman is entitled to be represented by an officer of a trade union of which he is a member, the reference in this case does not mention any officer of the trade union, but mentions the union itself. This is our opinion is a technicality upon technicality, for the union not being a living person can only be served through some officer, such as its President or Secretary and it is that officer who will really represent the workmen before the Tribunal. We are therefore, of the opinion that the reference which is otherwise valid does not become incompetent simply because it is mentioned therein that the workmen will be represented by such and such union in the dispute. " ( 11. ) IN Kamani Employees Union (supra), the Apex Court held:-"11. We are not inclined to accept the view of the High Court that the reference dated January 18,1964, in any manner interferes with the powers of the Tribunal in adjudicating upon the demand No. 3 covered by the reference dated December 19, 1962. In fact, in our view, the question that has been further referred by order dated January 18, 1964, is really a matter connected with or relevant to dispute No. 2 already pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has full jurisdiction when dealing with demand No. 3 covered by the order dated december 19, 1962, to consider the report mentioned in the subsequent reference dated January 18,1964. It had full power to consider as to in what manner and to what extent the modification is to be effected in the Incentive Scheme obtaining in the company. In fact, even without the second reference, the tribunal, when dealing with demand No. 3 of the 1st reference, could have also considered the question of adopting the scheme evolved by Ib-con Private Limited, because it was a relevant matter; and also connected with the Production Bonus Scheme. When it was so open to the Tribunal to consider the Scheme of ib-con, the fact that the Government specifically referred for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference. When it was so open to the Tribunal to consider the Scheme of ib-con, the fact that the Government specifically referred for consideration the said Scheme, makes no difference. At any rate the question covered by the 2nd Reference was a matter "connected with or relevant" to dispute No. 3 of the 1st Reference and hence the State was well within its jurisdiction under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act in passing the order dated in January 18,96. . . . . . . " ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid, during the pendency of first reference, second reference of connecting dispute before the same Tribunal was competent and it will not amount to withdrawal or supersession of previous reference. ( 13. ) IN Madan Pal Singh (supra), the Apex Court was considering the question of correcting the name of workmen held :- "13. During the course of adjudication proceedings no one was in doubt about the identity of the workman that it was Madan pal Singh. The management did not raise the preliminary objection about the validity of the reference on the ground that no workman by the name of Madan Lai was in its employment and so the reference was bad. Evidence had been led before the labour Court and it is only at the fag end of the proceedings that it was stated by the management that there was no Madan Lal in its employment. No doubt, initially the fault lay on the workman himself when he gave the wrong name and then did not pursue for correction of the name. There may have been causes for delay but it can not be said that the appellant is solely to be blamed for all this. Tirelessly and single handedly he has been fighting his case against the might of the State undertaking. If he was in fault to any extent in the delay of disposal of his case all these years and if ultimately he is found to be entitled to relief, the Court can certainly mould the relief suitably. Equitable considerations can certainly be taken into account in such case. " ( 14. If he was in fault to any extent in the delay of disposal of his case all these years and if ultimately he is found to be entitled to relief, the Court can certainly mould the relief suitably. Equitable considerations can certainly be taken into account in such case. " ( 14. ) IN Ajit Kumar Barat (supra), the Apex Court considering the nature of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that it is an administrative order and the Government is entitled to go into the question whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and it will be only a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material on record and being an administrative order, no lis is involved. The Apex Court summarised the law as :- (1) The appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference under Section 10 of the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and if such a reference is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the government to indicate the nature of dispute in the order of reference. (2) The order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi-judicial one and the Court, therefore, can not canvass the order of the reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial order. (3) An order made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act being an administrative order no lis is involved, as such an order is made on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (4) If it appears from the reasons given that the appropriate government took into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign material, the Court may in a given case consider the case for a writ of mandamus. (5) It would, however, be open to a party to show that what was referred by the Government was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. " ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid settled law by the Apex Court, there is no iota of doubt that the appropriate Govt. (5) It would, however, be open to a party to show that what was referred by the Government was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. " ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid settled law by the Apex Court, there is no iota of doubt that the appropriate Govt. is having power to correct the error in the reference and the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner can not be accepted that the State is having no jurisdiction to correct the error. The Division Bench of this Court has also considered the question in J. B. Mangharam and Co. Vs. KB. Kher, AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 183 held :- "16. As to the objection that the Government had no jurisdiction to amend the reference made on 21-6-1955 by a subsequent memorandum, it is sufficient to say that the language of Section 10 (4) is wide enough to permit the amendment. Under Section 10 a matter not covered by a reference can, by an independent subsequent reference, be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. If any additional reference can be made, then there is no reason why an amendment of the original reference should not be allowed. In this connection I need only refer to the decision in south india Estate Labour Relations Organisation Vs. State of Madras, 1955 Mad 45 [ (S) AIR V. 42] (0), where a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that under Section 10 the government has the power to amend a reference. In that case, the learned Judges of the Madras High Court observed : "the last point urged is that the Government had no jurisdiction under Act No. 14 of 1947 to amend a reference made under section 10 of the Act and that accordingly the Memorandum no. 59079, dated 25-6-1952 amending the reference made on 24-3-1952 is without jurisdiction. The objection is one of form and is without substance. It would have been open to the government to make under Section 10 an independent reference concerning any matter not covered by the previous reference. That it took the form of an amendment to the existing references and not an additional reference is a mere technicality which does not merit any interference in these proceedings. " ( 16. It would have been open to the government to make under Section 10 an independent reference concerning any matter not covered by the previous reference. That it took the form of an amendment to the existing references and not an additional reference is a mere technicality which does not merit any interference in these proceedings. " ( 16. ) IT will also be appropriate to look into the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are necessarily to be quoted for ready reference. 10. (4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to (a labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication. The Labour court or the Tribunal, or the National Tribunal as the case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. (5) Whether a dispute concerning any establishment or establishments has been, or is to be, referred to a (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this Section and the appropriate Government is of opinion, whether on an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that the dispute is of such a nature that any other establishment, group or class of establishments of a similar nature is likely to be interested in or affected by such dispute, the appropriate Government may, at the time of making the reference or any time thereafter but before the submission of the award, include in that reference such establishment, group, or class of establishments, whether or not at the time of such inclusion any dispute exists or is apprehended in that establishment, group or class of establishments. " ( 17. ) SUB-SECTION (4) of Section 10 provides that the appropriate government specify the points of dispute for adjudication in the order of reference and the Labour Court or Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. " ( 17. ) SUB-SECTION (4) of Section 10 provides that the appropriate government specify the points of dispute for adjudication in the order of reference and the Labour Court or Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto. Sub-section (5) gives power to state Government where a dispute has been referred to the Labour Court / tribunal under Section 10 and if the appropriate Government is of opinion that the dispute is of such nature that any other establishment, group or class of establishments of similar nature is likely to be interested in or affected by, such dispute, the appropriate Government may, at the time of making the reference or at any time thereafter but before the submission of the award, either on the application of otherwise include in that reference such establishment, group, or class of establishments, whether or not at the time of such inclusion any dispute exists or is apprehended in that establishment, group or class of establishments. ( 18. ) THE aforesaid sub-section (5) gives wide power to the appropriate Government to refer subsequently dispute which exists in other establishments also. Even if it is assumed that the identical dispute though was existed in Public Works Department, but was not referred when the matter of water Supply Department was referred to, even then State Government was well within jurisdiction to refer the matter of Public Works Department. But in the present case, the situation is entirely different. When the dispute was referred to appropriate Government for conciliation, the appropriate Government was well aware with the existence of the dispute in Water Supply department and also Public Works Department in the order dated 12-12-1997. The dispute in respect of both the departments were directed to be referred, but it appears that by mistake while preparing the schedule on 16-3-1998 (Annexure P-3) there was omission in respect of workmen of Public works Department, which has been subsequently corrected by the appropriate Government in substituting the Schedule (Annexure P-6), dated 12-1-2002. The appropriate Government while correcting the previous schedule has referred the matter specifically in respect of non-compliance of the awards dated 23-2-88 and 28-4-1997. In these circumstances, in fact, the state Government has corrected the error and has not amended or substituted the reference. The appropriate Government while correcting the previous schedule has referred the matter specifically in respect of non-compliance of the awards dated 23-2-88 and 28-4-1997. In these circumstances, in fact, the state Government has corrected the error and has not amended or substituted the reference. The order of reference dated 12-12-1997 (Annexure R-3-4) was given due effect vide Annexure P-6, dated 12-12-2002 and no new dispute was referred by the appropriate Govt, to the Industrial Court. ( 19. ) SO far as order passed by this Court in Ramadhar Kushwaha Vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 1464/2001, is concerned, this Court while deciding the question of regularisation of the employees working in Corporation as daily rated employees has issued following directions :- " (a) Respondent Corporation who has already prepared the seniority list of daily rated employees who are working prior to 31st December, 1988 will regularise the services of daily rated employees strictly as per their seniority and eligibility subject to availability of post. (b) The respondent Corporation has prepared aforesaid seniority list in two heads, technical and non-technical, will be at liberty to fill up the technical post on availability of technical post from daily rated worker who possesses requisite qualification. If the technical post is not available and the employee comes in the seniority criteria then respondent Corporation will be at liberty to regularise that person even on non-technical post, if such employee so chooses or opts such regularisation. (c) So far as non-technical persons are concerned, all the daily rated workmen will get their regularisation as soon as the posts become available as per his seniority and eligibility. (d) This order will not affect those employees who have already been regularised because of the order passed by the High Court or by Labour Court and the aforesaid order has reached its finality. But so far as the other employees are concerned, their services will be regularised as per the direction issued today including those whose regularisation are under challenge before this Court. But so far as the other employees are concerned, their services will be regularised as per the direction issued today including those whose regularisation are under challenge before this Court. (e) As the employees are to be regularised or classified on particular post on the availability of vacant post, as has been held in Full Bench decision by this Court in Superintending Engineer vs. State of M. P. and others [1999 (1) MPJR1], in the circumstances, if any litigation in respect of employee who is working prior to 31-12-1988 or after 1-1-1989, respondent Corporation will place this order before the Labour Court in that case and Labour courts will strictly follow the decision of Full Bench judgment and directions issued today in this case. (f) In respect of those cases in which any junior person has been regularised ignoring seniority of other daily rated employees and if presently the order is under challenge before this Court, the aforesaid order of regularisation by the Labour Court would stand modified, as per this order. (g) Those employees who are not satisfied with their seniority in the seniority list will file fresh representation before respondent municipal Corporation within a period of sixty days from today and Municipal Corporation will decide the seniority of those unsatisfied employees within a period of ninety days thereafter. (h) So far as the regularisation of the employees working prior to 31-12-1988 are concerned, the respondent will consider the cases for regularisation as and when the posts are available strictly according to their seniority. " ( 20. ) IN respect of those employees who were engaged after 1-1-1989, following directions were issued:- " (a) Respondent will prepare a fresh seniority list of all those employees who are continuously working in the Corporation and have achieved the status of permanent workman. This shall be done within 90 days from today. (b) The aforesaid list will be duly published by the Corporation and after considering objections of the employees, the aforesaid seniority list will be finalised. (c) The respondent Corporation on availability of post, after exhausting the list of employees working prior to 31-12-88 will regularise the services of all those employees strictly in accordance with their seniority and as per policy (Annexure R-4 ). (c) The respondent Corporation on availability of post, after exhausting the list of employees working prior to 31-12-88 will regularise the services of all those employees strictly in accordance with their seniority and as per policy (Annexure R-4 ). (d) The policy (Annexure R-4) will also be applicable in respect of employees who are working after 1-1-89 and have achieved a permanent status as per provisions of Standing Order. (e) For regularising the services of workmen working after 1-1-1989, respondent Corporation will also observe the reservation as has been mentioned in the Policy (Annexure R-4) and in case daily rated employees are available of reserved quota then respondent will fill up the aforesaid quota by regularising the services of those employees who belongs to reserved category on priority basis and if any such post remains vacant then they will follow the provisions of reservation by the State of M. P. " ( 21. ) THE aforesaid directions were issued to take care of the controversy involved in Ramadhar Kushwaha Vs. The State of M. P. and others, writ Petition No. 1464/2001. This Court has already directed Municipal corporation to place the aforesaid order before the Labour Court in identical matters in which the question of regularisation of the employees are involved. Needless to say, that the Corporation will place the aforesaid order before the industrial Court for compliance of the directions issued by this Court in ramadhar Kushwaha (supra), and the Industrial Court while deciding the reference, will comply with the aforesaid directions. ( 22. ) WITH the aforesaid observations, I do not find any merit in this petition, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.