Judgment :- (1) The award dated October 6, 1997 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, at Kolkata in reference No.31 of 1994 is under challenge in this writ application. By the impugned award the learned Tribunal directed the Food Corporation of India to regularise the appointments of the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 in the post of "Dusting Operators" with effect from January 9, 1983 on the basis of doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. (2) The facts of the case in a nutshell as revealed from the materials-on-record are discussed below: The petitioner-Corporation awarded contract to the Food Handling Cooperative Society in the year 1982 for execution of various operational works in its depots at C.S.D. Dubguri and Siliguri. The respondents took part in such operation works as "Anslyser", "Picker" and "Dusting Operators" from the January 1, 1983. The aforesaid Food Handling Co-operative Society executed the aforesaid works up to April 30, 1995 for two years from November 10, 1982 to November 9, 1984. However, there is a dispute with regard to the mode of engagement of the respondents in the aforesaid post. According to the petitioner-Corporation, they worked under the above contractor. While according to the respondent Nos. 2 to 14, they were engaged directly by the petitioner-Corporation as casual workers. Be that as it may, the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 continued to work under the petitioner- Corporation till their disengagement. (3) The respondent Nos. 2 to 14 raised an industrial dispute and the same was ultimately referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour on September 15, 1994 on the following terms of reference:- "Schedule Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in regularising the services of 12 workmen(list enclosed) of FCl, New Jalpaiguri, GFD Calcutta section and depriving them to payment of wages as departmental regular employees and other benefits is justified? If not what relief the said workmen are entitled to?" (4) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta passed the impugned award directing regularisation of the respondent Nos. If not what relief the said workmen are entitled to?" (4) The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta passed the impugned award directing regularisation of the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 as regular workmen of the petitioner-Corporation with effect from January 9, 1983 entitling them to get wages including all other benefits available to the regular employees of the petitioner-Corporation working in the post of "Dusting Operators" with effect from January 9, 1993. (5) The petitioner-Corporation filed the instant writ application challenging the impugned award and the same was initially dismissed on November 20, 1998 by a Single Judge of this Court. (6) The petitioner-Corporation preferred an appeal bearing M.A.T. No.4130 of 1998 against the aforesaid order dated November 20, 1998 passed in the instant writ application bearing W.P. No.16519(W) of 1996. (7) By an interim order dated March 22, 1999 a Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioner-Corporation to engage the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 which should be subject to the result of the aforesaid appeal. On April 23, 2004 the appeal was allowed and the impugned award dated October 6, 1997 was set aside. Consequent thereupon the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 were disengaged by the petitioner-Corporation on and from May 18, 2004. The respondent Nos.2 to 14 filed a Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P.(C) No.15395 of 2004 before the Honble Supreme Court. The Civil Appeal No.4243 of 2006 arising out of the above Special Leave Petition was disposed of with the following orders:-"We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Apart from the question which had been taken into consideration by the tribunal in arriving at its finding, we are of the opinion that the issues should be considered having heard to Staff Regulation, 1971 and in the light of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi(3) and Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 as also the decision rendered by this Court in its subsequent judgments. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration at the hands of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the learned Single Judge are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the matter afresh. It is stated by Mr. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration at the hands of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the learned Single Judge are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the matter afresh. It is stated by Mr. Kaushik., learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that pursuant to or in furtherance of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court the services of the appellants have been terminated. In that view of the matter, we would request the learned Single Judge of the High Court to consider the desirability of hearing out and disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal is allowed accordingly." (8) It is submitted by Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, that on the basis of the findings of fact by the learned Tribunal the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 were discharging the functions of "Dusting Operators", Regulation 7 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 prescribed for regular appointments in the service of the Corporation. According to him appointment to the post of Dusting Operator could only be made by way of promotion in accordance with the provisions of Column-IV of the table set out in the Appendix-I to the above Regulations. According to him there was no scope for direct recruitment of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 in the above post in according with the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971. It is also submitted by Mr. Gupta that Regulation 9 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 prescribed the procedure for direct recruitment and second proviso to Clause(a) of Regulation 9 prescribed consideration of eligible daily rated workmen along with the eligible candidates sponsored by the concerned employment exchange only in case of direct recruitment to the sanctioned post. Since there was no scope for considering the case of the petitioners for direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, the provisions of Regulation 9 of the above regulations had no manner of application in the instant case. (9) It is submitted by Mr. Since there was no scope for considering the case of the petitioners for direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, the provisions of Regulation 9 of the above regulations had no manner of application in the instant case. (9) It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that from the materials-on-record it is admitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 14 discharged their functions under the contractor, namely, Food Handling Co-operative Society. No notification under Section 10 of the contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 was issued in the instant case. According to Mr. Gupta the contract labourers were not entitled to regularisation of their services. (10) The third limb of submissions of Mr. Gutpa is this, regularisation was not a mode of appointment prescribed in the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971. Therefore, according to Mr. Gupta, assuming but not admitting that respondent Nos. 2 to14 were engaged directly as daily rated workers under the petitioner-Corporation, they were not entitled to be absorb in accordance with law. (11) Mr. Gupta relied upon the decisions of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi(3), reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , Accounts Officer (A and I), AP SRTC and Ors. v. K. V. Ramana and Ors., reported in 2007(2) SCC 324 , Surinder Prasad Tiwari v. U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors., reported in 2006 (7) SCC 684 , U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Ors., reported in 2007(5) SCC 755 , Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in 2007 (1) SCC 408 , Dr. Arundhati A Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 , Post Master General, Kolkata and Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta), reported in 2007 (5) SCC 317 , Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors., reported in 2007 (6) SCC 207 , Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., reported in 2007 (1) SCC 533 and unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated February 25, 2005 in the matter of Food Corporation of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol (M.A.T No.2245 of 2005). (12) Opposing the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. (12) Opposing the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 14, submits that second proviso to Clause (a) of Regulation 9 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 provided for considering the eligible daily rated workmen along with the eligible candidates sponsored by the employment exchange in case of direct recruitment under Category III and IV posts. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that fourth proviso to Clause (a) of Regulation 9 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 provided for considering the eligible departmental labour workers of the petitioner-Corporation along with the nominees of employment exchange at the time of direct recruitment. Since the respondent Nos.2 to 14 were engaged by the petitioner-Corporation directly on and from January 9, 1983 on the basis of findings of fact by the learned Tribunal, they were entitled for consideration of their cases for absorption. (13) It is also submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the engagement of the respondent Nos 2 to 14 were made by the petitioner-Corporation. Therefore, it could not be said that their engagement were illegal. The principles of law for regularisation of the irregular engagement was settled in the matter of Uma Devi (supra). (14) According to Mr. Ghosh, the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 worked under the petitioner-Corporation for more than 240 days without any break in their services. Their services were discontinued immediately after the judgment dated April 23, 2004 delivered in the appeal bearing M.A.T. No.4130 of 1998. According to Mr. Ghosh the provisions of Section 25F was not taken into consideration at the time of such discontinuation. According to Mr. Ghosh the impugned award cannot be set aside from the above point of view also. (15) Mr. Ghosh relies upon the decision of Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial, Bombay, reported in 1949 LLJ 245 to submit that the award of the Tribunal may contain provisions for settlement of a dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary law, but the Tribunal is not fettered in any way by those limitations. (16) I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of this case. (16) I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of this case. At the very outset it is necessary to mention that in view of the order dated September 15, 2006 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4243 of 2006 arising out the S.L.P.(C) No.15395 of 2004, the scope of judicial review of impugned award is restricted only to the following points:- (i) The issue of regularisation of the service be considered having regard to the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971. (ii) The above issue be considered in the light of Constitution Bench decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . (17) After considering the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, I find that Clause (1) of Regulation 7 of the above Regulations prescribed for regular appoints in the services of Corporation and the above provision is quoted below:- "7. Mode of appointment: (1) Regular appoints in the service of the Corporation can only be to the post specified in Column (2) of the Table set out in Appendix-I sanctioned for the period of not less than one year and shall be made: (a) In accordance with any of the modes specified against each in Column (4) thereof; or (b) By transfer from the corresponding categories as specified in Column (9) of the said Table of employees of the Central Government in the Directorate General of Food/Pay and Accounts Offices; or (c) By permanent absorption of deputationists in the service of the Corporation." (18) The relevant portion of the Table set out in Appendix-I to the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 are quoted below: (19) Admittedly, the learned Tribunal observed in the impugned award that respondent Nos.2 to 14 were discharging their functions in the post of Dusting Operators. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the provisions of Clause (1) of Regulation 7 read with the Table set out in Appendix-I to the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, the post of Dusting Operator could only be. filled up 100% by way of promotion. Therefore, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that there was no scope of regularisation of the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 in accordance with the above provisions. filled up 100% by way of promotion. Therefore, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that there was no scope of regularisation of the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 in accordance with the above provisions. (20) For proper adjudication of this case with regard to the scope of regularisation under the provisions of second or fourth proviso to Clause (a) of Regulation 9 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1981, the above provisions are quoted below:-"9. Procedure for direct recruitment: The following procedure shall be followed in the case of direct recruitment to posts sanctioned for more than 3 months or to posts sanctioned initially for less than 3 months but extended beyond 3 months: (a) Category III and IV Posts Provided further that such of the employees who were recruited on daily-rate basis for periods of less than 3 months or on purely temporary basis and whose services have been retained after allowing periodical breaks, shall also be eligible to be considered for appointment against direct recruitment along with candidates sponsored by the respective Employment Exchange. Provided further that the regular departmental labour workers of the Corporation, who fulfil the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to category III and IV posts, shall also be eligible to apply and be considered for appointment against direct recruitment vacancies along with the nominees of the Employment Exchange. (21) Admittedly, second proviso to the above Regulations prescribed for consideration of the cases of eligible daily rated workmen of the petitioner-Corporation along with the eligible sponsored candidates of the Employment Exchange in case of direct recruitments under category III and IV posts. Since there was no scope for direct recruitment to the post of "Dusting Operators" there was no scope for invoking the above provisions to regularise the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 14. (22) The fourth proviso to the above provision prescribed consideration of the cases of eligible regular departmental labour workers of petitioner-Corporation along with nominees of the Employment Exchange for direct recruitment under category III and IV posts. According to the finding of facts of the learned Tribunal the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 were not regular departmental workers of the petitioner-Corporation. Therefore, there was no scope of invoking the above provision for regularisation of the services of respondent Nos.2 to 14 in the services of the petitioner-Corporation. According to the finding of facts of the learned Tribunal the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 were not regular departmental workers of the petitioner-Corporation. Therefore, there was no scope of invoking the above provision for regularisation of the services of respondent Nos.2 to 14 in the services of the petitioner-Corporation. Admittedly, the respondents were not engaged in accordance with any provisions of FCI Staff Recruitment Rules, 1971. Admittedly, their engagements were de horse the provision of above recruitment rules. Therefore, their engagements were illegal. In this regard the relevant provisions of the decision of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) (supra) are quoted below:- "43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the Court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such person. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Nalanda College [1962 Supp(2) SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a College. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the arrived party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent. (23) In view of the above settled principles of law the services of the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 could not be regularisation the ground of continuation of their engagements for a considerable period of time or they on the ground that had continued under cover of an order of the Court. Nor the concept of "equal pay equal work" could be invoked in the instant case. 2 to 14 could not be regularisation the ground of continuation of their engagements for a considerable period of time or they on the ground that had continued under cover of an order of the Court. Nor the concept of "equal pay equal work" could be invoked in the instant case. (24) In view of the order dated September 15, 2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4243 of 2006 by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter, I do not find that there is any scope of considering the cases of the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 in the light of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (25) In this regard the relevant portions of the decision of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors., reported in 2008 (10) SCC 1 are quoted below:- "90. We are distress to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by co-ordinate and even Larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the Courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed." (26) The decision of Western India Automobile Association (supra) is distinguishable on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in this case. After considering the issues involved in this case in accordance with the direction of the Honble Supreme Court, the scope of judicial review cannot be expanded taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 14. After considering the issues involved in this case in accordance with the direction of the Honble Supreme Court, the scope of judicial review cannot be expanded taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 14. (27) The impugned award dated October 6, 1997 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata is quashed and set aside. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.