( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. Manmadha Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-corporation and Smt. Chaya Devi and Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. ( 2 ) SINCE common question arises in all these matters, they are being taken up together for disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in all these Writ petitions filed these Writ Petitions, inter alia, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, challenging the common award of the first respondent herein dated 19-6-2004 in favour of the respective second respondent in each of the cases in pursuance of a reference of a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 4 ) THE facts not in dispute are that the contesting second respondent in these Writ petitions were selected and appointed as casual drivers. The conditions of selection contemplate possessing at least 3 years of experience with a valid driving licence prior to date of appointment. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the selection made and after verification with the concerned licensing authorities, it was found that the driving licences which have been produced by them were not genuine. Though they sought to produce fresh driving licences, however, since they do not possess the minimum 3 years of experience prior to appointment with a valid driving licence, the very appointment is not valid. Therefore, the petitioner had initiated disciplinary action against all these contesting respondents by issuing separate charge sheets. In the explanation filed, the contesting respondents denied the entire allegations. However, ultimately, the contesting respondents were removed from service whereupon the matter was referred to the first respondent herein. ( 5 ) DURING the course of enquiry, which was taken up as common for all the reference in all the I. Ds. , no evidence was produced from either side and ultimately, on the basis of the allegations and counter allegations made, and by taking into consideration the respective submissions from both sides, the first respondent allowed the claims of the contesting respondents with a direction to appoint them as Drivers afresh. It is also directed that the conditions contemplated under the Circular dated 31-8-2000 issued by the petitioner also be kept in view. It is also directed that the conditions contemplated under the Circular dated 31-8-2000 issued by the petitioner also be kept in view. Further, it is pointed out that in case if any of the contesting respondents have not furnished the genuine driving licences, they were given an opportunity to submit the same within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award and the service rendered earlier to the date of removal was also to be taken into account. Hence, the Writ Petitions. ( 6 ) THE learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- corporation in all the Writ Petitions strenuously contends that admittedly the driving licences which have been produced by contesting respondents in all these cases were found to be not genuine and further they were not possessing minimum experience with a valid driving licence prior to the date of appointment and therefore, as contemplated under its own Circular dated 31-8-2000, no relief as such would have been granted by the first respondent herein in the dispute referred. Further, there is also no justification to waive such condition. ( 7 ) SMT Chayadevi and Smt. Shanti neelam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, strenuously opposed the aforesaid submissions stating that having regard to the facts and circumstances and especially the discretion was exercised by the first respondent and the directions given thereunder, there are no warranting grounds for interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is also pointed out that, in fact, the contesting respondents were possessing genuine licences even on the date of appointment and the mistake, if any, cannot be put against them for denial of the service especially when they have put in nreminished (sic. unblamished) record of service all along. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made and on perusal of the material, the only question which arises for consideration in these matters is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the impugned common award in directing the consideration of the cases of the contesting respondents for appointment afresh on possessing valid driving licences, is valid? ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made and on perusal of the material, the only question which arises for consideration in these matters is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the impugned common award in directing the consideration of the cases of the contesting respondents for appointment afresh on possessing valid driving licences, is valid? ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute to the fact that all the contesting respondents were duly appointed, though as casual drivers, on the basis of the driving licences, which have been produced by them and they have been in service all along. Admittedly, there is no complaint of whatsoever nature against any of them. It is only when the petitioner has found after verification from the concerned licensing authorities that the driving licences produced by them are not genuine, disciplinary action was initiated against them by due process by issuing charge sheet and obtaining explanation and ultimately having found that they do not possess either genuine driving licences or the required 3 years experience as such, they were removed from service. During the course of enquiry, it is curious to note that neither side sought to lead any evidence to explain the state of affairs and there is no explanation forthcoming as to why such material is sought to be withheld from both the sides. The case of the petitioners is that the contesting respondents do not possess valid driving licences whereas it is the case of the contesting respondents that they did possess valid licences but there have been certain mistakes. Primarily, on behalf of the petitioners, the Circular dated 31-8-2000 was sought to be put into service, which shows the requirements at the time of selection. Further, it is also contended that even if any such direction is given to appoint them afresh, the same can be considered only as and when vacancy arises and not otherwise. Basically, this is not a case where any award is passed with a direction for reinstatement and setting aside the orders of termination. However, it is only the case where the award directs appointment of contesting respondents as driver afresh and that too after taking into consideration the circular dated 31-8-2000. Basically, this is not a case where any award is passed with a direction for reinstatement and setting aside the orders of termination. However, it is only the case where the award directs appointment of contesting respondents as driver afresh and that too after taking into consideration the circular dated 31-8-2000. The only indulgence as sought to be shown in favour of the contesting respondents is for enabling them to produce genuine driving licences and not of any such driving licences, which have been found not genuine. In fact, it is pointed out on behalf of the contesting respondents that most of them did possess valid driving licences, but the same were not brought to the notice at appropriate time. Further, they are discharging their duties without any blur against them. ( 10 ) THE learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to submit that the said Circular dated 31-8-2000 was issued in pursuance of the power as conferred under Regulation 35, which contemplates for issuance of subsidiary instructions. They not only add but also provide areas which have not been provided for under the Regulations. However, it is not necessary to go into the correctness of such circular and the competency in issuance thereof. It would suffice in the interest of justice to say that having regard to the nature of direction as given in the award, which is purely discretionary one and that too on the facts and circumstances as arisen , no valid ground has been made out on behalf of the petitioners to warrant interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I do not find any merits in all these writ Petitions. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.