JUDGMENT: D.G.R. Patnaik, J.-Both these Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellant Food Corporation of India are directed against a common judgment dated 19.5.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5857 of 1997 and CWJC No. 4497 of 1997 whereby both the writ petitions filed by the Management/ appellant herein against the Awards of the Industnal Tribunal no. 1 in favour of the respondent workmen in Reference case No. 96 of 1992 and Reference Case No. 108 of 1992 respectively, were dismissed. 2. The case of the workman in CWJC No. 5857 of 1997 relating to Reference Case No. 96 of 1992. is that he was employed as a casual typist in the district office of the Food Corporation of India on 5.9.1986 and worked there till 27.7.1990. But from 28.7.1990 he was stopped by the Management from working. He was paid wages up to 15.5.1990 and thereafter no payment was made to him and on the contrary. his name was struck off from the Rolls from 15.5.1990. His assertion was that he had worked for more than 240 days during 12 calendar months and yet without issuance of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was retrenched from service. The Management of the Food Corporation of India contested the claim of the workmen by making counter assertion that the workman concerned was an independent professional Typist working in the Civil Court at Laheria Serai (Darbhanga) and the Management of the Food Corporation of India used to get some papers typed by him occasionally as and when required. He was not performing any regular typing work or clerical job nor was he ever given regular employment under the Food Corporation of India. 3. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms of reference:- "Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, Laheria Serai, Darbhanga, in retrenching Shri Govind Kumar Choudhary who was working as a casual typist, arbitrarily and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and denYing reinstatement with full back wage is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" The Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, vide its Award passed on 18.12.1996 (read with corrigendum dated 18.2.1997) answered the Reference in favour of the concerned workman and directed the Management of the Food Corporation of India to reinstate and regularize the workman from the date of retrenchment with 50% back wages, within two months from the date of publication of the award. Against the Award of the Tribunal, the Management of the Food Corporation of India filed CWJC No. 5857 to' 1997. 4. The dispute in reference case no. 108 of 1992 (CWJC No. 4497 of 1997) was raised by the respondent workman Sri Hari Nandan Prasad. His claim was that he was working in the Food Corporation of India as Food Storage Depot In-charge from 1.6.1980 to 26.3.1983 and had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months. However, he was stopped from work from 1.3.1983 without notice and was retrenched from service without any prior notice or payment of retrenchment compensation in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management of the Food Corporation of India contested the claim of the workman by counter asserting that the concerned workman was engaged as a temporary casual workman on 1.6.1980 by the then Junior Engineer, Sri S.N. Kumar, posted at the Food Storage Godown while construction work was In progress. The Junior Engineer was not the competent authority to engage any casual worker since it is only the District Manager who was competent to employ a casual worker. It was also contested that since casual workers were employed on ad hoc basis, the workman could be appointed only by following regular procedures through Employment Exchange and only when a permanent vacancy exists. 5. The dispute was referred to the. Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms of reference:- Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in retrenching Sri Hari Nandan Prasad, Ex casual workman is in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularization of service is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 6. 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularization of service is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned Award dated 12.12.1996 (read with corrigendum dated 18.2.1997) directing the Management of the Food Corporation of India to reinstate and regularize the concerned workman concerned with 50% back wages for the period 1.3.1983 till the date of reinstatement within two months from the date of publication of the Award. 7. The writ petition filed by the Management of the Food Corporation of India was for quashing the Awards passed by the Tribunal in both the reference cases. 8. Learned Single Judge noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Management of the Food Corporation of India took a decision to implement the Award of Reference Case No. 96 of 1992. but when an order under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed in CWJC No. 5857 of 1997 on 12.11.2000, the Management issued another letter dated 18.11 .2000 withdrawing its earlier decision and did not implement the Award of the Tribunal. 9. The learned Single Judge confirmed the findings of the Tribunal in both the Awards and observed that the Tribunal has rightly come to the finding that the retrenchment of the concerned workman was in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, since the workmen concerned had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months and furthermore, that 70-75 similarly situated casual workmen were regularized by the Management and therefore denial of similar benefit to' the workmen concerned was not justified. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge did not find any reason to interfere with the Awards passed by the Tribunal in both the cases. 10. Assailing the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also assailing the findings of the Tribunal recorded in both the awards passed by the Tribunal, Sri S. Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the findings In the Award are totally misconceived and against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court consistently in various judgments. 10. Assailing the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also assailing the findings of the Tribunal recorded in both the awards passed by the Tribunal, Sri S. Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the findings In the Award are totally misconceived and against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court consistently in various judgments. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1992 SC 789 and the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Others [ 2006(4) SCC 1 ] [: 2006(2) JUR (SC) 282] the learned counsel submits that even on the admitted case of the workmen. they cannot be held to be entitled to regularization of their services merely on the ground that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year as casual employees. Learned counsel argues further that though the District Manager of the FCI was authorized to employ persons as temporary workers, but such authority was given for employing them for seven days only and not more, and in case of violation of this strict stipulation notified by the circulars issued by the FCI, the concerned authority were liable to be departmentally proceeded. Even if such temporary employment was allowed to continue beyond stipulated period of seven days, this does not give right to such employees to claim regularization of their employment. It has further been argued that before passing direction for reinstatement of the workmen and regularization of their services, the Tribunal ought to have considered that there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioners were employed against sanctioned posts or that there was existing vacancy in which workmen were appointed or that their appointment was routed by any application made by them through the Employment Exchange or that they appeared for test or interview or that their names were in the attendance register or wage registers of the Food Corporation of India or that letters of termination of service was issued from the side of the Management. 11. Per contra, argument advanced by Mrs. 11. Per contra, argument advanced by Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent workmen is that the Awards are based on evidence on record and passed in accordance with the established law and there is no perversity in the findings in the Awards which would call for interference by the Court. Learned counsel argues that undisputedly, both the workmen were employed under the FCI, albeit as temporary workers, but the admitted fact is that both the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months. Under such circumstances, their retrenchment from service could be done only in compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has found that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and in violation of the aforesaid provisions of the 10 Act. It has further been contended that the demand of workmen for regularization is based on circular dated 6.5.1987 issued by the Management of the FCI whereby any temporary workmen employed f9r more than 90 days was entitled for regularization of his service. In compliance with the direction in the said circular, the Management regularized services of about 70-75 similarly situated casual workers. Denying similar benefits to the workmen concerned in the present case is therefore discriminatory and illegal. Learned counsel adds further that none of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to by the appellant is applicable to the present case. 12. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the Awards in question and the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld for the following reasons. 13. Admittedly, both the workmen were employed as casual workers. The Tribunal has recorded its finding that both the workmen concerned worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months. To be more specific, the workman G.K. Chaudhary claims to have worked for four years while the other workman Hari Nandan Prasad claims to have worked for 2 years and 8 months. The Award of the Tribunal directing the Management to reinstate and regularize both the workmen is apparently based on the aforesaid fact coupled with the fact that about 70-75 casual workmen were regularized by the Management as per its Circular dated 6.5.1987 and that it is the demand of equity that the present workmen should also be given similar benefits. 14. 14. The Tribunal has apparently misconceived the principles of law laid down in this context. In the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1992 SC 789 ) the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that temporary employees, even if they have worked for more than 240 days, cannot claim any right or benefit for automatic regularization of their services. Similar view has been taken in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata & Others vs. Tutu Das. (Dutta), reported in 2007(5) SCC 317 . More so, where no regular posts are created or no vacancies to sanctioned posts exists, only on the ground of working for more than 240 days, regularization cannot be directed. Even in cases where there are regular posts and vacancies, the procedure laid down for appointment has to be followed. 15. The contention of Mrs. Pal that there has been discrimination as several persons were regularized on the basis of the Circular of the Management dated 6.5.1987, cannot be accepted. Reliance for this purpose on the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey reported in (2007)11 SCC 92 , is also of no help to her. Firstly, there were several conditions and criteria in the said Circular for regularization, but there is no finding that the respondents workmen in these appeals fulfilled such criteria. Secondly, in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board (supra), the employees of the Co-operative Society who were taken over by the Electricity Board claimed that the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of the employees working from before 4.5.1990, will also apply to them as they were also appointed prior to 4.5.1990 in the Society. It was held that since the taken over employees were appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990, they could not be denied the benefit of the said decision of the Electricity Board. There is nothing to show that the appointment of the taken over employees was made by the Society without following the procedure in that behalf, whereas in the present case, the respondents workmen were not appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts after following the procedure of appointment. There is nothing to show that the appointment of the taken over employees was made by the Society without following the procedure in that behalf, whereas in the present case, the respondents workmen were not appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts after following the procedure of appointment. Furthermore, in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC)282], it was held that no Government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. In para 16 of the judgment in the case of R.S. Garg vs. State of U.P. ( 2006(6) SCC 430 ), it has been held that even the Government cannot make rules or issue any executive instructions by way of regularization. Similar view has been taken in the case of the Post Master General (supra). Therefore, the respondent workmen cannot claim regularization on the basis of the said Circular of the Management dated 6.5.1987, nor the said Judgment of the U.P. Electricity Board (supra) is of any help to them. 16. Now, the question is whether the Awards in question for reinstatement and regularization could be passed on the basis that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even if the said finding is accepted, such Awards cannot be upheld. In the judgment of Post Master General, Kolkata (supra), It has been held that violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is no ground for directing regularization. So far as compensation is concerned, it may be noted that in the present proceedings, order for payment of last wages drawn in terms of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has continued for several years by which the respondents- workmen have been duly compensated, even if there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 17 So far as the objection of Mrs. Pal regarding the scope of interference with the Awards is concerned, in paragraph 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra), it has inter alia been held that regularization, if already made but not sub judice, need not be re-opened. In the present case. the Awards of regularization are sub judice in these writ petitions. The contention of Mrs. Pal regarding the scope of interference with the Awards is concerned, in paragraph 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra), it has inter alia been held that regularization, if already made but not sub judice, need not be re-opened. In the present case. the Awards of regularization are sub judice in these writ petitions. The contention of Mrs. Pal that the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) is not applicable in the cases of the Awards passed by the Industrial Adjudicator, is also not acceptable in view of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment in the case of U.P. Power Corporation limited vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, reported in (2007)5 SCC 755 . 18. The following portion of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) is also relevant:- 43. "…………..Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitied to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangements of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." 19. In the present Case also, both the workmen were admittedly employed strictly as temporary workers without any stipulation or promise that their services would be regularized and made permanent In due course. The appointment of these workmen were not routed through any application forwarded through the Employment Exchange, nor was the legal procedure prescribed for appointment was adopted. 20. In view of the above discussions, we find merit in these appeals and accordingly, while allowing the prayer of the appellants in these appeals, we set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the impugned Awards passed by the Tribunal in both the aforesaid Reference Cases. R.K. Merathia, J.-I agree.