JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt., J. Heard learned advocates for the parties. In both these petitions, the parties are same and the subject matter of challenge is order and award dated 15th May,2008, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference(IT)(Central) No.1587 of 2008 and Old number being Vadodara Reference (IT)(C) No.5 of 1998 recommending the first party employer company to grant permanent status to the workmen if the vacancy is available for them and further they may be accommodated on regular posts as and when the permanent post fall vacant in future. 2. The petitions are thus ordered to be heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Hence, Rule in both the matters. In both these matters, Rule is fixed forthwith with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties. Learned senior advocate counsels for the respective respondents waive services of rule. 3. The employer first party in Reference (IT)(Central) No.1587 of 2008, has challenged the award dated 15th May, 2008 in Special Civil Application No. 11959 of 2008 on the ground that in view of the established position of law, the Court's or Tribunal's, power and jurisdiction to issue direction with regard to the regularisation especially in respect of an instrument of the State, though the award is couched in the form of recommendation, would not be justified and hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. The workmen have preferred Special Civil Application No. 12512 of 2008 challenging the award impugned in so far as it did not accept the reference in its entirety and did not direct the employer to regularise them despite they having put in number of years of service with the employer. 4. Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the employer (hereinafter referred to as "the employer" for the sake of convenience in both these petitions), contended that the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 , the ratio of which, is now reiterated in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2316 , observed that the Courts/Tribunals under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have to bear in mind, while examining the contention with regard to regularization, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka V. Umadevi Reported In (2006) (109) FLR 826 (SC) that may not be whittled down in any manner not only by Labour Court/Industrial Court/Tribunal but also by the Benches of High Courts. The Courts have to be mindful of the ratio laid down in case of Umadevi (supra) while considering the case of an employee who has not been employed after following the due procedure of law, which is required to be followed by the State and/or its instrumentals. From that angle, the order of the Tribunal impugned in this proceedings though couched with the phraseology "recommendation", is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Shri D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the workmen contended that the Apex Court, in para 53 of the case of Umadevi (Supra), laid down that the irregularly appointed workmen are required to be regularised as one time measurement. Therefore, the recommendation which is in fact direction to the employer in the impugned award cannot be said to be in any way contrary to law. Moreover, he submitted that in fact, looking to the facts and evidence which have come on record, the Tribunal ought to have rather considered issuing directions for permanent absorption right when matter was being disposed of. The fact has come on record that the workmen have been working with the employer for number of years and they were given regular work. In view of this, when there is no other reason for them being not regularized, then the direction of regularisation ought to have been issued. Shri Shukla submitted that the decision cited by Shri Bhatt, learned advocate for the employer in the case of Man Singh (Supra), would have to be looked into from the angle that even the case of Apex Court in its decision in the case of Official Liquidator (Supra), has not restrained Courts from issuing directions which may not be inconsistent with the observations of the Apex Court in para 53 of the case of Umadevi (Supra). The decision relied upon by Shri Shukla in the Apex Court's decision in the case of Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union v. mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. and another reported in (2006) (111) FLR 409 (SC) as well as Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Engg. Mazdoor Sangh reported in (2007) (112) FLR 499 (SC), also contained direction with regard to regularisation and this Court, therefore, if not accepting the petition filed by the workmen, may not, at least, interfere with the direction issued by the Tribunal with regard to regularisation of the workmen as and when the vacancy arose and in fact the vacancy is also existing as on date. Therefore, they should have been regularised in view of the direction which would not be contrary to any provisions of law. 6. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Shukla for the following reasons:- The award, as it is appearing on the face of it, contains specific stand of the workmen which would go to show that the workmen were engaged for working as casual hand, to do cleaning or driving as and when need arose. Thus, it is not a case of the workmen that they were appointed after following due procedure of appointment. It has come on the record that there exist due procedure for appointment in this employer's establishment, which indicates that the recruitment are made after inviting only those candidates whose names are registered with the respective employment exchanges, from the open market by advertisement Thus, when there is a specific mode of recruitment as prescribed, then the engagement of casuals not in accordance with such procedure would amount to illegal appointment and not mere irregular appointment as sought to be canvassed by Shri Shukla. Relying upon the observation of the Apex Court in para 53 in the case of Umadevi (Supra), it has come on record that when the engagement of the workmen concerned was on intermittent basis as and when the need arose, then naturally they would have no claim of being regularly absorbed without following the due procedure of law for recruitment merely with the direction of the Court. From the decision of the apex court, cited at the Bar, in the case of Mineral Exploration Corpn. From the decision of the apex court, cited at the Bar, in the case of Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union (Supra), it is clear that the existing rule recognised the status of the workmen as temporary and under those rules, rights were claimed. Whereas, in the instant case, the workmen have not established that under which rules they could have claimed right of being absorbed or made permanent in the respondent Corporation. Shri Shukla's submission with regard to discussion of relevant recruitment rules, which could be pressed into service for justifying the direction issued, is also of no avail to the workmen. In fact those Recruitment rules namely, "Rule 10.2.3. of rules is set of recruitment rules for appointment to the post other than those of the officers", which also requires that for recruiting the names of candidates are to be called from the Employment Exchange for filling up the post other than that of the officers, whereas the direction issued by the Tribunal in the award impugned does not refer to the process of recruitment to be adhered to in case of future vacancies so far as these workmen are concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the direction were issued in consonance with the provisions of Rule 10.2.3. The Court is of the view that though employees have not been regularly appointed or engaged workmen, but the fact has also come on record that for years together they were engaged by the petitioner Corporation and they were thus earning their bread out of such engagement. Their resorting to the lawful remedy under the I.D. Act 1947 may not be viewed as an adversary approach on their part so as to dis-entitle them from regularly getting engaged which they were otherwise getting with the employer. It is required to be noted that the fact with regard to their past and present working with the employer Corporation also needs to be given due and proper weightage, at the same time, the rule which are in existence as on date may also have to be taken into consideration. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the employee being Special Civil Application No.12512 of 2008 is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the employee being Special Civil Application No.12512 of 2008 is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. So far as Special Civil Application No. 11959 of 2008 is concerned, it is required to be partly allowed by modifying the award giving following reasons as under :- It is required to be noted that the employer being authority and instrument of the State would naturally not have any adversary approach towards the workmen only because they have come in the Court of law for redressal of their grievances. It is, therefore, accepted that if the work is available and if the regular recruitment is not resorted to, then the workmen party here be considered for the engagement. Of course, the recommendation of the Court is subject to the availability of the work and it would not in any way restrain the employer from adhering to its business policy or trade and commercial requirement. The work is to be assigned as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the result, the award impugned shall stand modified as under: The employer shall adhere to the recruitment rules especially Rule 10.2.3 while making recruitment and other applicable Rules while making fresh recruitments. If the present workmen are in the fray, then the some weightage would the attached to their consideration because of their experience with the employer Corporation but this assigning of weightage be done only after making it public at large in the advertisement itself. 8. With this observation, the petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 12512 of 2008 stands dismissed and the same is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in Special Civil Application No. 11959 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs in both the petitions. Petition Disposed Of.