JUDGMENT Heard Shri Kothari, learned AGP for the petitioners and Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel for the respondent by making the rule returnable forthwith. As per earlier understanding, the matter is to be disposed of finally in the order matters only. 2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is by State Government and it challenges the judgment dated 04.08.2008 delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, in Complaint (ULP0 No. 263 of 2006. By the said judgment, the Industrial Court has directed the petitioners to bring the respondent on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (C.R.T.E.) from 1985 and to pay him all consequential benefits including difference in wages after deducting payments made to him, with interest of 6% if that amount was not released within one month. 3. The facts show that Respondent was in employment from 1980 on Nominal Muster Roll basis and he was terminated on 01.12.1987. He challenged that termination in Complaint (ULP) No. 158 of 1987 and by order dated 27.06.1994 delivered therein, he was reinstated in service with continuity and back wages. It is an admitted position that this judgment of labour court in his favour has not been subjected to further challenge. 4. In this back ground, the respondent approached the Industrial Court complaining of an unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 in Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), pointing out that though as per Clause 28 of Kalelkar Settlement, he was entitled to be brought on CRTE in 1985 i.e. after completion of five years of service, he was not given that benefit. The Industrial Court has accepted that grievance and delivered the impugned order. 5. The provisions of Kalelkar Settlement are not in dispute. As per its scheme, every employee who was working for five years on daily wages is entitled to be given benefit thereof and the petitioner has accordingly worked on N.M.R. and he, therefore, satisfied its requirements. Because of operation of that settlement a post personal to the present respondent was created in 1985 itself. The Industrial Court has in recognition of these facts, granted him necessary benefits. 6. Because of operation of that settlement a post personal to the present respondent was created in 1985 itself. The Industrial Court has in recognition of these facts, granted him necessary benefits. 6. The learned AGP is relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi(3), reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806 and in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand, reported at 2008 (10) SCC 1 , and the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghavendra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, reported at (2009) 4 SCC 635 . All these judgments are considering the scope of power to be exercised either by Administrative Tribunal or by the High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has in its recent judgment in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, reported at (2009) 8 SCC 556 clarified the relevance of these judgments in labour disputes. Following observations are sufficient for the present matter: “34. It is true that Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees’ Assn.6 arising out of industrial adjudication has been considered in Umadevi (3)1 and that decision has been held to be not laying down the correct law but a careful and complete reading of the decision in Umadevi (3)1 leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi (3)1 was the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment where the employee s have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as recognised by the rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularisation and conferring them status of permanency have been passed. 35. Umadevi (3)1 is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 36. 35. Umadevi (3)1 is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 36. Umadevi (3) 1 does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) 1 cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.” 7. Very recently in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 795798 of 2010 decided on 22.01.2010), the Hon’ble Apex Court has while following the above mentioned two judgments in the case of Umadevi (3) and Dayanand (supra) has not allowed the respondents i.e. employees before it to urge their entitlement under Labour laws for regularization as it was sought to be argued for the first time before it. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions filed by State challenging the directions of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to consider the cases of respondent employees for regularization. While noticing the constraints on powers of High Court & Administrative Tribunal and allowing the appeals of State Government, Hon. Apex Court has clarified that it has not adjudicated the rights of employees under Industrial Disputes Act. However, liberty has been given to them to approach appropriate forum under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if open to them. This judgment, therefore, again shows that entitlement of present respondent under Kalelkar Settlement looked into by the competent Industrial Tribunal cannot be interfered with on the ground of above mentioned two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. However, liberty has been given to them to approach appropriate forum under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if open to them. This judgment, therefore, again shows that entitlement of present respondent under Kalelkar Settlement looked into by the competent Industrial Tribunal cannot be interfered with on the ground of above mentioned two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. The respondent here ought to have been given his personal post in 1985 itself and hence I find that in such situation, reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Umadevi(3) & Dayanand (both supra) by the learned AGP is misconceived. The learned AGP has also tried to contend that certain formalities were to be completed by the respondent and as he has not completed those formalities, he is not entitled to benefit of judgment of the Industrial Court. Shri Naukarkar, learned counsel for the respondent is disputing this. Whether the respondent has completed or not completed those formalities, cannot be the ground for challenging the judgment delivered by Industrial Court. It can at the most constitute a valid defence for not implementing it. 9. I, therefore, find that no case is made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.