1. Petitioner seeks regularization in service besides the promotional and consequential benefits as provided by the Jammu and Kashmir State Handloom Development Corporation to its employees in the year 1986-87, under the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994, pursuant to the setting aside of his termination vide Labour Courts Award of July, 09, 1999. 2. The Jammu and Kashmir State Handloom Development Corporation, hereinafter to be referred as the `Corporation, for short, has opposed the petitioners claim saying that the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994, published vide SRO 64, notified on March 24, 1994 were not applicable to the Corporation and its employees and the petitioner, not being entitled to regularization thereunder, was not entitled to the promotional and consequential benefits. Petitioners claim for back wages has been contested by the Corporation saying that it had paid Rs. 90,000/- to him towards the arrears of his salary. 3. None had appeared for the Corporation to contest the Writ Petition, when it was taken up for hearing and it was because of this reason that the writ petition was heard ex-parte. 4. I have considered the submissions of the petitioners Counsel, gone through the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/ Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994, hereinafter to be referred as "the Regularization Rules", for short, the Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31-1-1994, which shall be referred as the `Government Order and the material placed on records. 5. Respondent-Corporation has not disputed the reinstatement of the petitioner into service, pursuant to the Labour Courts Award, which was un-successfully contested by it up to the Honble Supreme Court of India. 6. The only question which, therefore, falls for consideration, in the petition is as to the applicability of the Regularization Rules to the Corporation and the entitlement of the petitioner thereto. 7. A reading of the provisions of the Regularization Rules no-doubt reveals that these are applicable only to those Daily rated workers/ worked charged employees who were engaged in any Government Department; but when read with the Government order, it comes clear that the Scheme of Regularization of Daily Rated Workers/ Worked Charged Employees, as applicable to those engaged in any Government Department, has been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the Public Sector Undertakings/ Autonomous Bodies, like the Corporation. 8. 8. Cases of regularization of those working in the Corporation, as indicated in the Government order are, however, required to be considered by the Committee, notified as such, in Government order No. 26-F of 1994, afore-mentioned, subject to the modification that for Head of the Department concerned, the Managing Directors of the Corporations or the Senior Executives of the Autonomous Bodies shall stand accordingly substituted. 9. In view of the above, it is thus explicit that the provisions of the Regularization Rules, having been made applicable by the Government Order to the Corporation, the employees of the Corporation, would be entitled to seek regularization in the Corporation Service, if found eligible therefor under the Rules. 10. Perusal of the findings of the Labour Court and those recorded by this Court, in respondents writ petition questioning the Labour Courts Award, indicate that the petitioner, appointed as a Fitter by the Corporation in 1986 had continued working as a skilled worker from May 01, 1986 to December 12, 1987, when his services were illegally terminated. 11. Respondents plea before the Labour Court that the petitioner was a Casual Labourer and was not engaged by the Competent Authority of the Corporation, had not been accepted either by the Labour Court or by this Court, because no such finding as sought for by the Corporation determining the petitioners status as Casual Labourer had been so returned by the Labour Court. 12. Respondents have not placed any material on records on the basis whereof the petitioner, employed as a skilled Labourer in the year 1986 who had continued as such with the Corporation, for more than 240 days before his termination, may be said to have been engaged for rendering casual services to the Corporation. Therefore, in the absence of any such material indicating the engagement of the petitioner for discharging any casual services, the petitioner is deemed to have been engaged as a Daily Wager. 13. Therefore, in the absence of any such material indicating the engagement of the petitioner for discharging any casual services, the petitioner is deemed to have been engaged as a Daily Wager. 13. The Reservation Rules, notified vide SRO 64 of 1994 as applied by the Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 to the Corporations, which include the Jammu & Kashmir State Handloom Development Corporation, thus entitle the petitioner, who has completed more than seven years continuous period of working as daily rated worker in the Corporation, because of the consequences flowing from the Labour Courts Award, to regularization in the Corporation Service, in terms of the Regularization Rules read with the provisions of the Government Order. 14. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, under an obligation to consider the petitioners case for regularization under the Regularization Rules and for grant of all consequential benefits pursuant to his regularization. 15. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. A Writ of Mandamus shall issue to the Jammu and Kashmir State Handloom Development Corporation and its functionaries, to consider the petitioners case for regularization in Corporation Service, in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/ Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994 and Government Order NO. 26-F of 1994 dated 31-1-1994. In the event of petitioners regularization in service of the Corporation, he shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits including the pecuniary benefits, to which he becomes entitled under rules. Respondents to ensure compliance within three months.