JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The award dated 1.6.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam in Reference Case No. 3(C) of 1993, deciding it in favour of the Respondent No. 2 with a direction to the Petitioner-corporation to regularize his services with effect from 2.7.1986 with full back wages constitute the subject-matter of challenge in the instant proceedings. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India ('the FCI') and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned amicus curiae for the Respondent No. 2. 3. The pleaded version of the Petitioner, in short, is that the Respondent No. 2 was engaged by the District Office, FCI, Guwahati at its Pay Office, Tezpur from June 1983 to July 1986 as a casual employee on purely temporary basis, so much so that he did not work for over 19 days in a month. After the posting of a regular Grade-IV staff in the said office, his engagement was discontinued. According to the Petitioner-corporation, the Respondent No. 2, however, volunteered to perform the job of filling drinking water filters in the said office, which used to consume a few minutes. Considering the incidental nature of the work, he was paid Rs. 50 per month on compassion. The Petitioner-corporation has asserted that the Respondent No. 2 had never been appointed by it. The said Respondent, however, raised an industrial dispute for regularization of his service, which eventually was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, Assam to decide the following issue: Whether the action of the Management of the Food Corporation of India in relation to their Pay Office at Tezpur in not regularizing the services of Shri Paban Borah, casual worker w.e.f. 2.7.1986 is justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? 4. Both the parties entered appearance and filed their respective written statements projecting their stands. Whereas, the Petitioner-corporation disowned the Respondent No. 2 as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') and contended against his right to be regularized, the said Respondent claimed to have been initially engaged as a casual worker w.e.f. 1.5.1983 by the Assistant Manager (Pay), FCI. Tezpur till June 1986 and thereafter as suffaiwalla-cum-water carrier w.e.f. 3.7.1986 as a fixed pay of Rs. Tezpur till June 1986 and thereafter as suffaiwalla-cum-water carrier w.e.f. 3.7.1986 as a fixed pay of Rs. 50 per month, though his service were utilized for the whole day as a full time workman under the Corporation. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award decided the reference in favour of the said Respondent and directed the Corporation to regularize his services as mentioned hereinabove. 5. This Court on 21.10.1998 issued rule, but did not stay the operation of the award assailed. It has been submitted at the Bar that the Respondent No. 2, however, has since not been regularized in terms of the directions contained in the award. 6. Mr. Roy, has argued that the learned Tribunal having grossly erred in directing regularization of the services of the Respondent No. 2 on the sole consideration of his long tenure with the Corporation in total disregard of its pleadings as well as the nature of his engagement, the impugned award is patently untenable in law and is liable to be interfered with. The learned Counsel has urged that as the Respondent No. 2's engagement has been of purely casual nature and without reference to the procedure prescribed by the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 ('the Regulations'), he has no right in law to claim regularization of his services and, therefore, the direction to that effect contained in the impugned award is out rightly flawed and is liable to be quashed. Referring to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation explaining the reason for its inability to act in terms of the award, Mr. Roy, has maintained that it's a fit case where the same (award) be annulled, it being opposed to the letter and spirit of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (III), (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The learned Standing Counsel to endorse his arguments also placed reliance on the decisions in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, (1997) 6 SCC 650 , U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 755 and Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 552 . 7. Mr. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 755 and Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress and Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 552 . 7. Mr. Goswami, as against this, has argued that the Corporation not having complied with the award, it ought not to be heard in the matter before purging the contempt committed by it thereby. He also questioned the maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay. The learned amicus curiae, while pointing out that the engagement of the Respondent No. 2 had not been denied by the Corporation at any point of time, in absence of any evidence by it to controvert his testimony corroborating his pleaded case, the impugnment of the award is frivolous. Mr. Goswami, further insisted that in absence of any evidence, the plea that the engagement of the Respondent No. 2 was not in conformity with the Regulations ought not to be sustained. According to him, the Corporation having failed to discharge its burden vis-a-vis the issue in the reference, no interference with the impugned award is called for. The learned amicus curiae pressed into service the decision of the court of Appeal in Hadkinson v. Hadkinson 1952 All ER 567. 8. The pleaded facts and the submissions made have received the due consideration of this Court. The Corporation in its affidavit dated 23.7.2008 has cited the following reasons in explaining its inability to implement the directions in the award: (a) No regular appointment through any recruitment process as per the Regulations in the post of Safaiwalla and Messenger has been made since November 1982. (b) Engagement of casual labour in any of the establishments of the Corporation has been banned vide Circular No. EF.1(4)/85 dated 2.5.1986 followed by Circular No. EF.1 (4)/85-Vol.11 dated 6.5.1987. (c) The Respondent No. 2 is not working in any post or against any vacancy so as to enable the Corporation to regularize him therein. While tendering unqualified apology for not acting in terms of the award pending the disposal of the instant proceeding, the Corporation has clarified that the Respondent No. 2 is continuing on the same terms as in the year 1986. 9. There is no counter on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to these sworn assertions. 10. While tendering unqualified apology for not acting in terms of the award pending the disposal of the instant proceeding, the Corporation has clarified that the Respondent No. 2 is continuing on the same terms as in the year 1986. 9. There is no counter on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to these sworn assertions. 10. The Court of Appeal in Hadkinson (supra), speaking through Romer, L.J., while underlining the unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until it is discharged, propounded that one of the consequences of a breach thereof is that no application to the court by such a person ought to be entertained unless he has purged himself of his contempt. His lordship dismissed the apology to be a substitute for compliance of such order and cathartic of the contempt. Lord Justice Denning, in his supplementary rendering while observing that a litigant no matter how badly he had behaved, has a right to be heard enunciated that if, however, his disobedience is such that, so long as it continues, it impedes the course of justice in the cause, by making it more difficult for the court to ascertain the truth or to enforce the orders which it may make, then the court may in its discretion refuse to hear him until the impediment is removed or good reason is shown why it should not be removed. 11. One of the questions formulated in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agarwal and Anr. (2007) SCC 433, was whether the employer if otherwise entitled to relief, can be denied the same on the ground that it had failed to reinstate the employee in absence of any stay of the direction for reinstatement made by the concerned Industrial court following interference with his dismissal consequent upon a domestic enquiry Responding to the plea raised on behalf of the employee that in face of the non-compliance, the employer had disentitled itself to the equitable consideration of the court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, their lordships observing that mere omission to reinstate pursuant to the award could not entail the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the same. 12. 12. Having regard to the judicial opinion noticed hereinabove on the issue and the explanation provided by the Corporation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to non-suit it only on the ground of non-compliance of the award. Though, the Corporation as it evident from its pleadings is stridently assertive against owning the Respondent No. 2 to be on its rolls as its employee/workman, it has vividly admitted his engagement initially as a casual employee at its Pay Office, Tezpur from June 1983 to July 1986 and thereafter on part time basis at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 50. The Respondent No. 2, in his written statement before the learned Tribunal had maintained that he had been engaged as a casual worker w.e.f. 1.5.1983 by the Assistant Manager (Pay), FCI, Tezpur and had continued at such till the end of June 1986, during which he worked the whole day on all working days every month and at times on Holidays and Sundays as well. He insisted that he was thereafter made to work as safaiwalla-cum-water carrier w.e.f. 3.7.1986 at a fixed pay of Rs. 50 per month on full time basis. Noticeably, though the Respondent No. 2 had examined himself on oath and had proved and exhibited documents in support of his case, the Corporation abstained from adducing any evidence in controversion. The learned Tribunal on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record both oral and documentary, held that the Respondent No. 2, served initially as a casual labour and then a safaiwalla-cum-water carrier as a full time worker on all working days during the office hours and had also to oblige his employer rendering services at their residence on Sundays and Holidays whenever required. It was also determined that his services were availed and utilized by the staff at the Pay Office, Tezpur. Observing that the Respondent No. 2 had been rendering his services as such since 1983, the learned Tribunal directed regularization of his service. 12A. On a scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on records and in absence of any evidence on part of the corporation to the contrary, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the Respondent No. 2 had been Serving as a casual worker from 1.5.1983 to June, 1986 and thereafter as safaiwalla-cum-water carrier w.e.f. 3.7.1986 at a fixed wage of Rs. 50 per month as a full time worker, cannot be dubbed and denounced as perverse and unsupported by the materials on record. 13. The Regulations, in terms of Clause 7 thereof, contemplate appointments to any post in the Corporation of an ad hoc basis as well amongst others, on a purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year as well as on special contract subject to such terms and conditions as may be decided by its Board. The procedure for direct recruitment for category III and IV posts is delineated in Clause 9, which permits participation in the process also of an employee, who had been recruited on daily wage basis for a period of less than 3 months or on temporary basis and whose services have been retained after allowing periodical breaks. Regular departmental labourers/workers of the Corporation, who fulfill the educational qualifications prescribed for those posts, have also been rendered entitled for direct recruitment vacancies. The materials on record, however, do not disclose as to whether the Respondent No. 2, had either been afforded or had availed any opportunity to participate in the process for regular appointment on direct recruitment under the Regulations. It is, however, apparent that his engagement was dehors the procedure therefore as comprehended by the Regulations. 14. The decisions on behalf of the Corporation offered to nullify the direction for regularization of the services of the Respondent No. 2 being in contravention of and in disregard to the Regulations deserve a brief reference at this stage. In UP Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra) and Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Euam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (supra), referring to its decision in Uma Devi (supra), the Apex Court discountenanced the direction issued by the concerned Industrial court to regularize the services of the employee involved, de hors the procedure prescribed therefor. In both the cases, the employees involved were determined to have been engaged on daily wage basis. It was further clarified in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra) that though the Industrial Adjudicator's powers were not directly issued in Uma Devi (supra), the foundational logic therein was based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the issue of regularization therefore, could not be viewed differently. 15. It was further clarified in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra) that though the Industrial Adjudicator's powers were not directly issued in Uma Devi (supra), the foundational logic therein was based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the issue of regularization therefore, could not be viewed differently. 15. The Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), negated the application of equality in the face of statutory rules lest the same is rendered nugatory or otiose if the procedure provided for recruitment thereunder is departed from or abandoned. In the contextual facts, though the length of the term of the Respondent No. 2 cannot be effaced as wholly irrelevant and instead is demonstrative of the continuing nature and utility of his employment, in view of the preponderant judicial pronouncements as above, the direction for regularization of his services by circumventing or forsaking the Regulations, cannot be sustained. The initial engagement of the Respondent No. 2 being de hors the procedure prescribed by the Regulations and on purely casual basis, mere continuance of that arrangement could not justify his regularization sans the rigour of the exercise enjoined by it. The impugned award is, therefore, interfered with. The above notwithstanding, having regard to the background of facts and the admitted position that as on date the Respondent No. 2 is continuing with the Corporation, it would be in the fitness of things to issue a direction to it to permit his (Respondent No. 2) participation in the next process for direct recruitment to a post for which he is academically and otherwise qualified. The Corporation would in its discretion and as contemplated by the Regulations, if applied for by him, consider his request for relaxation of the conditions of eligibility therefor, namely, qualification, experience, age etc. and assess his suitability for the post involved and pass appropriate orders considering the fact that the Respondent No. 2 has been, admittedly, rendering his services for over two decades. It would be expected of the Corporation to extend weightage to his past experience and services in adjudging his fitness and worth for his recruitment for the post applied for. The petition is, thus, allowed with the above observations. No costs. Petition allowed