JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award dated 15.7.1996 given by respondent No. 1 in the following industrial disputes : Industrial dispute Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 46, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57 of 1990 and 113 of 1993 (total No. 41). All the employees who raised the aforesaid disputes were daily rated workers (daily wagers). 2. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi through its notification dated 1.1.1990 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court : “Whether the demand of union to regularize the workmen (named below) of Betwa River Board, Rajghat Dam, Nandanpura, Jhansi against the post on which they are working with retrospective effect from the date of their appointment is justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled.” 3. In all 41 notifications were issued and the above mentioned 41 industrial disputes were registered before Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. In every reference several employees were involved. Total number of employees was 606. The details of notification numbers and names of employees mentioned in each of the notification are given in the award, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The employees contended that they were working from the dates of their appointments continuously and were doing work of permanent nature. Date of appointment of each employee was different. The Central Government IndustrialTribunal held that : “These workers were employed for the purposes of construction of dam.” Immediately before the said finding it was held that : “Thus these daily rated workers were engaged for the purpose of construction of dam only and not by Betwa River Board.” The Tribunal also held that : “There is no dispute that at present these concerned workmen have continuously worked for 15 to 16 years (They were employed in between 1978 to 1986). I was also informed by the management that it would take five or more years for completion of project.” In penultimate para (para-33) tribunal held as follows : “In my opinion from the above analysis of facts it becomes clear that after meeting out objections of the opposite party management the concerned workmen have made out a case for regularization. I was also informed by the management that it would take five or more years for completion of project.” In penultimate para (para-33) tribunal held as follows : “In my opinion from the above analysis of facts it becomes clear that after meeting out objections of the opposite party management the concerned workmen have made out a case for regularization. This regularization will serve them as an umbrella to protect them from the policy of hire and fire and of course they will be entitled for wages and other facilities at par to those of other Central Government servants similarly placed.” In the last para it was held that : “The concerned workmen are not entitled for regularization from the date of their respective appointments. In view of above my award is that the opposite party management shall prepare a list of seniority of the concerned workmen and shall take steps for their regularization within one year from the date of publication of this award or otherwise these concerned workmen will be deemed to be regularized after one year from the date of publication of award. By regularization they shall not be deemed to be entitled to equal, wages and other facilities at par to those of Central Government employees placed in similar circumstances.” 4. The tribunal mainly based its award upon the authority of the Supreme Court State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118 . The said authority has now been over ruled by a Constitution Bench authority of the Supreme Court Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (3) 2006(4) SCC 1 (para 26 and 54) : AIR 2006 SC 1806 . 5. At this stage it may be mentioned that similar references were made in respect of several work charge employees of the same Board i.e. Betwa River Board and similar directions as given, in the instant case were also given by the tribunal in respect of those work charged employees. The said award was challenged through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4442 of 1997. However, meanwhile, the Board regularized their services hence the said writ petition according to learned Counsel for both the parties became infructuous and was dismissed as such on 21.8.2006. 6. It may be mentioned that in this writ petition no stay order was granted. The said award was challenged through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4442 of 1997. However, meanwhile, the Board regularized their services hence the said writ petition according to learned Counsel for both the parties became infructuous and was dismissed as such on 21.8.2006. 6. It may be mentioned that in this writ petition no stay order was granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in compliance of order of the Labour Court all the concerned employees (apart from those who have crossed the age of superannuation) are being retained and paid sajary in accordance with the award even though services of all of them are no more required by the Board keeping in view the volume of the work learned Counsel has further stated that the position is that the work which may normally be discharged by one employee is being distributed to 4 or 5 employees (of course learned Counsel for employees has denied this assertion). During arguments learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed that out of total 606 daily wagers in respect of whom references were made at present only about 475 are working and rest have either died or retired. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the project was completed in October 2005 and now only the maintenance work remains. 7. Parliament enacted Betwa River Board Act, 1976 to provide for the establishment of Board for creation of Reservoir at Rajghat by construction, on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, a dam on the Betwa river at Rajghat and for the regulation of such reservoir. Through Section-4 of the said Act it was directed that there shall be established for the purposes of the said Act a Board to be called Betwa River Board. Accordingly, the Board was established. Under Section 10 functions of the Board were provided which include carrying out of surveys and investigations in the Betwa Inter-State river valley and prepare a comprehensive project for the construction of Rajghat Dam and appurtenant work and for the generation of power and to construct the said dam and power house and a common carrier from the dam to irrigate areas in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and perform any other function which is supplemental, incidental and consequential to all or any other functions specified under clause 8(e) of the said Section. Under Section 12 it was further provided that Board shall have the power to do anything, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out function and its work. It was provided under Section 11 that the entire expenditure incurred by the Board in discharge of its function shall be shared by Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Under Section 13 it was provided that a fund known by the name of Betwa River Board fund shall be constituted for meeting out the salaries of officers and other employees and for other expenditure. 8 There cannot be any doubt that for constructing a dam or any other project much more people are required than for maintaining it after its construction is complete. In paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the aforesaid Constitution Bench authority of Uma Devi the Supreme Court has discussed three of its earlier cases pertaining to employees of the projects. The first one is Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 (4) SCC 33 . The other is Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. A.K. Misra, AIR 1994 SC 1638 . In the said authority It was held that if the engagement was made in connection with particular project, on completion of project those who were temporarily engaged in the project could not claim any right to continue in service. The third case is State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma, AIR 1996 SC 1565 . In the said case the Supreme Court cautioned that if directions are given to re-engage the employees engaged for a particular work in any other work or appointing them against existing vacancies “the judicial process, would become another mode of recruitment dehors the rules.” 9. In the following authorities it has been held that daily wagers hold no post: (1) M.P. Housing Board v. M. Srivastava, 2006(2) SCC 702 (2) M.L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority, 2005 (1) SCC 693 and (3) M.P. State Agro Industrial Development Corporation v. S.C. Pandey, 2006 (2) SCC 716 . 10. Several other authorities were also cited by learned Counsel for both the parties. However, in view of Constitution Bench authority of Uma Devi I do not consider it necessary to mention those authorities in detail. 11. 10. Several other authorities were also cited by learned Counsel for both the parties. However, in view of Constitution Bench authority of Uma Devi I do not consider it necessary to mention those authorities in detail. 11. In view of the above authorities particularly the Constitution Bench authority of Uma Devi the direction of regularization given by the impugned award cannot be sustained. 12. Before the Labour Court it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is discharging sovereign function hence it is not Industry and therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The same argument has also been raised in this writ petition. The argument is not tenable in view of leading authority of the Supreme Court Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 . In 1996 and 1997 two division benches of the Supreme Court consisting of two Hon’ble Judges in each case had taken a contrary view and had held that Telephone department is not an Industry. The decisions were overruled by the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom v. S.C. Rao, AIR 1998 SC 656 . Supreme Court quoted para 143 of Bangalore Water Works authority. Para 143 (b) of the said authority is to the following effect : “Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies.” 13. In this regard reference may also be made to Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Hariauni, AIR 2000 SC 3116 . In the instant case generation of power is one of the important functions of the petitioner Board. Generation of power is naturally a commercial activity hence it cannot be said that petitioner Board is discharging sovereign function and is not an Industry : 14. At this juncture it is essential to quote paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench authority of the Supreme Court Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 (supra) : “One aspect needs to be clarified. At this juncture it is essential to quote paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench authority of the Supreme Court Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 (supra) : “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ; R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972)1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 15. In the aforesaid paragraph it was directed that instrumentalities of Union of India and State Governments which term clearly includes "Betwa River Board” shall take steps to regularize as a one time measure the services of those irregularly (but not illegally) appointed who have worked for 10 or more years. In the instant case all the workmen had worked for more than 10 years when the award was given. In the instant case all the workmen had worked for more than 10 years when the award was given. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioner shall decide as to whether some of the affected workmen are entitled to be regularized or not. In this regard among others the following two basic things must be kept in mind. (1) Principle of seniority must strictly be followed and senior most employees (seniority to be counted from the date of joining) shall be regularized. This will be in consonance with Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act. (2) It must be ascertained as to whether the type of work which a particular workmen was doing is still available with the Board in respect of maintenance of the dam or any other function which is continuously to be performed by the Board in respect of the maintenance of dam and allied work and for the generation of power and maintenance of the power house. A reasoned order in this regard must be passed as early as possible. 16. Until passing of the aforesaid order no workmen affected by the impugned award who is still working shall be retrenched. If after taking decision regarding regularization of workmen affected by the impugned award some workmen are to be retrenched then retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act shall be given to them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the following authorities that Section 25-F is attracted even in the case of retrenchment of daily wagers : (1) G.M. Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 (2) Dhampur Sugar Mills v. Bhola Singh, 2005 (2) SCC 470 (3) M.P.S. Agro Development Corpn. v. S.C. Pandey, 2006 (2) SCC 716 17. Apart from the retrenchment compensation as aforesaid each retrenched employee shall also be given Rs. 10,000/- extra. These amounts shall be paid through bank drafts drawn in favour of each concerned employee, alongwith termination order. However, in this regard technicalities of prior, simultaneous or subsequent payment or payment being condition precedent etc. shall not be permitted to be raised. Non payment will entail 2% per month interest. In case of non payment workman concerned will be entitled only to recovery of the amount due in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 18. However, in this regard technicalities of prior, simultaneous or subsequent payment or payment being condition precedent etc. shall not be permitted to be raised. Non payment will entail 2% per month interest. In case of non payment workman concerned will be entitled only to recovery of the amount due in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 18. The above directions in respect of bar of retrenchment until decision by the Board and in respect of payment of compensation and Rs. 10,000/- extra are not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. However, these directions are being issued in order to do complete justice between the parties. Writ Court while deciding a case, apart from legalities is also to be guided by equity. The Supreme Court in S.F. Products v. LIC, AIR 1996 SC 2410 has held in para 11 as follows : “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to. give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court being, extra ordinary is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of natural justice to promote honesty and fair play.” 19. In this regard reference may also be made to the Supreme Court authority U.P. State Brassware Corp. v. U.N. Pandey, 2006 (1) SCC 479 wherein it has been held in paras 40 and 41 as follows : Para-40. The Industrial Disputes Act was principally established for the purpose of pre-empting industrial tensions, providing the mechanics of dispute resolutions and setting up the necessary infrastructure so that the energies of partners in production may not be dissipated in counter-productive battles and assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill (See LIC of India v. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111). Para 41. The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes between the management and the workmen, therefore, must take such decisions which would be in consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law.” Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Accordingly. ———